CALIFOjpiA 
AGRICULTURAL  E^JtTENSION  SERVICE 

CIRCULAR  1 

April,  1926  '"^ 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 


PEACHES 


H.  R.  WELLMAN 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Cooperative  Extension  work  in  Agriculture  and  Home  Economics,  College  of  Agriculture, 
University  of  California,  and  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  cooperating.  Dis- 
tributed in  furtherance  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  May  8  and  June  30,  1914.  B.  H.  Crocheron, 
Director,    California  Agricultural  Extension    Service. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1926 


This  publication  is  the  first  of  a  series,  each  of  which  will  dis- 
cuss the  economics  of  a  crop  prominent  in  California  agriculture. 

Heretofore,  those  who  desired  to  consult  the  statistics  for  any 
particular  crop  were  compelled  to  search  through  a  long  and 
varied  list  of  references  scattered  in  publications  of  many 
bureaus  of  the  State  and  Federal  governments  and  of  various 
private  agencies.  This  publication  attempts  to  bring  the  material 
together  in  one  publication  and  to  present  it  in  graphic  form. 

This  work  was  initiated  as  the  result  of  a  request  from  the 
California  Farm  Bureau  Federation,  the  California  State  Grange 
and  the  California  Farmers'  Union.  Its  fulfillment  has  been 
made  possible  through  the  hearty  cooperation  of  many  agencies 
which  have  generously  contributed  from  their  data  and  their 
time.  Among  these  are  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  Cooperative 
Crop  Reporting  Service  of  the  State  Department  of  Agriculture, 
the  United  States  Department  of  Commerce,  the  California 
Development  Association,  the  Agricultural  Legislative  Commit- 
tee, the  California  Canning  Peach  Growers,  the  California  Fruit 
Exchange,  the  California  Peach  and  Fig  Growers  Association, 
and  the  California  Cooperative  Canneries. 

This  publication  tries  to  give  such  facts  as  are  available.  It 
is  hoped  that  it  may  be  of  assistance  to  farmers  interested  in 
growing  peaches,  both  to  those  who  have  already  planted  peach 
orchards  and  to  those  who  may  wish  to  determine  whether  they 
should  plant  this  crop.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  decide  the 
matter  for  the  grower.  Decision  must  be  left  to  him,  because 
much  will  depend  on  local  conditions  and  on  the  personal 
equation. 

The  peach  industry  is  complicated  because  the  fruit  has  three 
uses :  as  fresh,  dried,  or  canned  products.  Even  in  the  simplified 
form  here  presented,  the  material  may  appear  complex  and  diffi- 
cult to  grasp.  Few  persons  will  gain  much  from  a  casual  glimpse 
or  reading  of  the  publication.  Those  who  would  gain  knowledge 
and  understanding  of  the  industry  will  be  repaid  by  a  thorough 
study  of  the  facts  here  given. 

B.  H.  Crocheron, 

Director  of  Agricultural  Extension. 


PEACHES 

11.  E.  WELLMAN* 


SUMMARY 

California  produces  all  of  the  dried  peaches  and  practically  all  of 
the  canning  peaches  in  the  United  States.  With  fresh  peaches,  how- 
ever, the  situation  is  different :  only  a  small  portion  of  the  fresh 
peaches  are  produced  in  California.  A  study  of  the  industry  must 
consider,  therefore,  three  fairly  distinct  commodities ;  viz.,  canning 
peaches,  dried  peaches,  and  fresh  peaches.  These  three  are  closely 
related,  owing  primarily  to  the  fact  that  certain  varieties  of  Freestone 
peaches  may  be  canned,  dried,  or  shipped  fresh.  The  relationship  is 
most  clearly  shown  in  the  tendency  for  the  prices  of  each  of  the  kinds 
of  peaches  to  move  in  the  same  general  direction.  This  tendency  is 
especially  noticeable  with  canning  and  dried  peaches. 

A  number  of  important  changes  in  the  peach  industry  have  been 
taking  place  during  the  last  twenty  years.  Since  the  changes  have  not 
all  been  in  the  same  direction  nor  to  the  same  extent,  it  seems  advisable 
to  summarize  each  commodity  separately. 

Canning  Peaches. — One  of  the  important  changes  has  been  the 
steady  decline  in  the  purchasing  power  of  canning  peaches,  which  has 
declined  eleven  per  cent  during  the  past  fifteen  years.  The  dollar 
which  the  growers  receive  for  their  peaches  will  normally  buy  less  of 
other  commodities  today  than  it  did  five,  ten,  or  fifteen  years  ago. 

A  second  important  change  has  been  the  rapidly  increasing  pro- 
duction of  canning  peaches  in  California,  particularly  of  canning 
Clingstone  peaches.  This  increased  production  has  been  the  most 
important  cause  for  the  decline  in  purchasing  power.  However,  a 
change  in  the  consuming  habits  of  the  American  people,  that  of  eating 
more  canned  peaches  and  less  fresh  and  dried  peaches,  has  prevented 
the  price  of  canning  peaches  from  going  as  low  as  it  otherwise  would. 

A  study  of  the  data  presented  in  this  circular  indicates  that  the 
trend  of  purchasing  power  of  canning  peaches  is  not  likely  to  rise  above 
the  present  level  within  the  next  few  years,  because : 

1.  Production  is  increasing.  New  plantings  are  more  than  sufficient 
to  maintain  the  present  bearing  acreage.  These  are  being  made  in 
localities  in  which  the  yield  per  acre  is  high. 


Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 

2.  The  production  of  competing  products  such  as  pineapples,  pears, 
apricots,  and  cherries  is  also  increasing. 

3.  The  buying  power  of  consumers,  as  indicated  by  wages  and 
employment,  has  been  at  a  high  level  since  1922 ;  and  it  can  not  be 
expected  that  this  buying  power  wdll  increase  to  any  considerable  extent 
in  the  near  future. 

Furthermore,  the  trend  of  purchasing  power  may  continue  to 
decline  unless  the  present  rate  of  plantings  is  decreased  or  unless  the 
demand  for  canning  peaches  should  increase. 

Dried  Peaches. — The  purchasing  power  of  dried  peaches  has 
declined  more  rapidty  than  that  of  canning  Clingstone  peaches,  despite 
a  considerable  decrease  in  production  during  the  last  ten  years.  The 
tendency  is  for  people  to  eat  less  dried  peaches  today  than  they 
formerly  did,  even  though  they  can  buy  them  at  a  relatively  lower 
price. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  present  rate  of  planting  of  Freestone  peaches 
is  hardly  sufficient  to  maintain  the  present  bearing  acreage.  It  does 
not  seem  likely  that  the  volume  of  production  will  rise  above  its 
present  level  within  the  next  few  years,  unless  a  portion  of  the  Free- 
stone peaches  which  are  normally  canned  and  shipped  fresh  should  be 
dried.  This,  however,  is  an  ever-present  possibility.  Whenever  the 
price  offered  for  dried  peaches  is  more  attractive  than  that  offered  for 
canning  or  fresh  peaches,  some  growers  will  dry  certain  varieties  of 
their  Freestone  peaches  instead  of  shipping  them  fresh  or  selling  them 
to  the  canners. 

The  alternative  outlets  for  Freestone  peaches  have  been  largely 
responsible  for  the  close  relation  between  the  prices  of  the  three  kinds 
of  peaches  during  the  past ;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  these 
alternative  outlets  will  prevent  the  future  prices  of  dried  peaches  from 
rising  much  above  that  offered  for  canning  and  fresh  peaches. 

Fresh  Peaches.- — The  purchasing  power  of  fresh  peaches  has 
declined  even  more  rapidly  than  that  of  canning  Clingstone  peaches 
or  dried  peaches.  This  decline  seems  to  be  largely  a  result  of  the 
increase  in  the  production  of  competitive  fruits  and  vegetables,  and  a 
decrease  in  the  per  capita  consumption  of  fresh  peaches.  During  the 
last  twenty  years  there  has  been  a  definite  tendency  for  the  American 
people  to  eat  less  peaches  in  the  fresh  form. 

The  price  which  California  growers  receive  for  fresh  peaches  is 
determined  almost  wholly  by  conditions  outside  of  the  state.  Although 
the  production  of  fresh  peaches  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole  has  not 
increased  appreciably  during  the  last  twenty  years,  there  has  been  a 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES  5 

definite  shift  in  the  peach  producing  sections  from  areas  of  high  cost 
to  areas  of  low  cost.  Consequently,  California  fresh  peach  growers 
will  probably  be  subjected  to  more  severe  competition  in  the  future. 

According  to  the  Agricultural  Outlook  for  1926,  published  by  the 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture,  a  rapidly  increasing  production  of  fresh  peaches  may 
be  expected,  due  to  the  extensive  plantings  of  young  orchards  in  recent 
years  in  the  South  Atlantic  and  Middle  Western  states.  Our  principal 
markets  are  even  more  readily  available  to  these  sections  than  to  Cali- 
fornia. It  seems  likely,  therefore,  that  the  decline  in  the  trend  of  the 
purchasing  power  of  fresh  peaches  will  continue  for  some  time  unless 
there  should  be  an  unexpected  increase  in  consumption. 

Foreign  Demand. — Definite  information  on  the  demand  for  peaches 
in  foreign  countries  is  not  available.  In  the  Agricultural  Outlook  for 
1926,  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  makes  the  following  fore- 
cast of  the  general  foreign  demand  for  farm  products : 

''The  present  prospects  in  foreign  markets  are  that  the  demand 
for  most  of  the  products  of  our  farms  in  1926  will  be  no  better  than  for 
the  products  of  1925,  if  as  good,  unless  the  competing  products  of 
foreign  countries  should  be  reduced  by  a  less  favorable  season. 
Although  the  purchasing  power  of  consumers  in  most  countries  for  the 
products  which  they  will  have  to  import  may  be  as  good  or  better  than 
in  the  past  year,  recovering  domestic  production  and  the  imposition  of 
protective  tariffs  is  reducing  the  demand  in  some  countries  for  foreign 
products  and  competition  in  all  foreign  markets  probably  will  be  at 
least  as  strong  as  last  year. ' ' 

The  present  outlook  of  the  peach  grower  does  not  justify  an  increase 
in  his  peach  acreage  unless  he  is  able  to  produce  peaches  at  the  current 
values  or  lower.  He  should  not  expect  greatly  increased  values  for  his 
product  during  the  forthcoming  years,  but  must  depend  in  the  main 
upon  improved  efficiency  for  an  increase  in  his  return.  The  expansion 
of  the  peach  industry,  if  it  is  to  continue,  should  be  made  upon  lands 
that  are  primarily  adapted  to  the  production  of  this  fruit,  and  only 
with  an  understanding  of  the  possibility  of  continually  lowering  values. 
While  this  declining  price  level  may  not  be  realized  and  while  cir- 
cumstances may  arise  which  will  improve  the  present  condition  of  the 
peach  grower,  these  are  not  yet  evident  from  the  facts  we  have  been 
able  to  gather.  Unless  the  grower  can  obtain  a  high  tonnage  per  acre 
at  a  relatively  low  cost  he  should  not  expect  to  find  peach  grooving  a 
profitable  business. 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


s 

o 

^ 

<v 

o 

pi 

B* 

m 

C3 

<v 

f-i 

b£) 

> 

u 

ft 

:^ 

s 

C3 

? 

-H 

03 

Oi 

P 

rt 

+^ 

o 

o 

+2 

(tS 

w 

be 

Pi 

OS 

s 

o 

PI 

Pi 

> 

P! 

'zi 

O 

o 
o 

Pi 

CO 

Pi 

03 

<o 

q; 

to 

<v 

r— 1 

02 

!h 

'feJO'^ 

c5 

(D 
pi 

OS 

^ 

O 

=H 

,o 

Pi 

o^ 

o 

-M 

CD 

2 

P3 

^ 

o 

<D 

O 

Pi 

?3 

© 
,i:3 

'TIS 
o 

4-* 

p3 

Id    o 

OJ 

ft 

2 

o 

.^ 

0 

rt 

r^ 

";h 

be 

4J 

cS 

03 

S3 

^ 

5 

s 

Cl 

Ci 
I— 1 

O 

W 

r^ 

q3 

PI 

o 

o 

O 

c3 

o 

s 

Oi 

© 

•rH 

CQ 

OS 

> 

o 

5 

'b£) 

O 

«4-l 

<v 

05 

ft 

lO 

CO 

<V 

;h 

3 

(D 

Qi 

S3 

CM 

OS 

;h 

ft 

Oi 

p 

•+J 

T-i 

•  i-i 

bJC 

pi 

o 

O 

o 

rH 

o 

,^3 

<v 

O 

OS 
OS 

<D 

,£3 

cS 

OS 

!h 

q5 

'^    r^ 

0) 

id 

1-1 

o 

o 

■♦-' 

CD 

.)-:> 

02 

2 
c3 

Pi 

o 

> 

Pi 
pi 

s 

to 

O 

a 

-4^ 

o 

CO 

<v 

<u 

SH 

o 

pi 

r2 

C^ 

-M 

PJ 

OS 

'ft 

1 

-t-» 
03 

a 

o 

Pi 

t> 

en 

•r-( 

.  o 

O 

0) 

ps 

fc 

<v 

a> 

o 

>^ 

Qj   oS  -*-|; 


ri-f? 


1926]  CROPS   AND  PRICES:    PEACHES 


THE  GENEEAL  SITUATION 

Peach  Acreage,  United  Staies. — Thirty-one  of  the  48  states  had 
more  than  4000  acres  of  peaches  each  in  1919,  as  indicated  in  figure  1. 
The  total  peach  acreage  in  that  year  amounted  to  approximately 
872,640  acres,  98  per  cent  of  which  were  in  the  31  states.  The  14  states 
of  Georgia,  California,  Texas,  Pennsylvania,  Arkansas,  New  York, 
Oklahoma,  Ohio,  Missouri,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  New  Jersey, 
Michigan,  and  West  Virginia  had  more  than  25,000  acres  each ;  a  total 
of  663,000  acres,  or  76  per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  acreage. 
Of  the  872,640  acres,  656,460  were  in  bearing  and  216,180  were  not  in 
bearing.  The  ratio  of  non-bearing  to  bearing  in  1919,  therefore,  was 
33  per  cent ;  that  is,  there  were  33  non-bearing  trees  for  each  100 
bearing  trees. 

The  total  peach  acreage  in  the  United  States  decreased  from 
1,367,730  in  1909  to  872,640  in  1919,  a  decrease  of  495,090  acres  or 
36.2  per  cent.  During  this  same  period  the  bearing  acreage  decreased 
30.5  per  cent,  and  the  non-bearing  acreage  decreased  48.9  per  cent. 

In  1909  there  were  945,067  bearing  acres  and  422,662  non-bearing 
acres,  the  ratio  of  non-bearing  to  bearing  being  45  per  cent.  Since 
the  bearing  acreage  decreased  30.5  per  cent  from  1909  to  1919  it  is 
evident  that  45  non-bearing  trees  for  each  100  bearing  trees  were  not 
sufficient  to  maintain  the  bearing  acreage.  The  ratio  of  non-bearing  to 
bearing  in  1919  was  33  per  cent.  This  indicates  that  a  further  decrease 
in  bearing  acreage  is  taking  place  at  the  present  time.  The  rate  of 
decline  cannot  be  measured  because  the  1925  Farm  Census  does  not  list 
separately  the  bearing  and  non-bearing  peach  trees.  On  the  whole  it 
seems  probable  that  the  ratio  necessary  to  maintain  the  bearing  acreage 
will  gradually  become  smaller,  because  the  shift  in  peach  production 
is  away  from  those  areas  in  which  the  ratio  is  high  and  toward  those 
areas  in  which  the  ratio  is  smaller.  Consequently,  acreage  figures  must 
be  supplemented  by  production  figures  in  order  to  obtain  a  correct  view 
of  the  situation. 

Peach  Production,  United  States. — Although  the  bearing  peach 
acreage  has  decreased,  peach  production  has  increased  as  indicated  in 
figure  2.  During  the  ten-year  period  from  1909  to  1919  there  was  an 
increase  of  12  per  cent  in  production,  although  the  number  of  bearing 
trees  decreased  30.5  per  cent. 

Peach  production  in  California  has  increased  much  faster  than  in 
the  United  States  as  a  whole.  From  1906  to  1925  California 's  produc- 
tion increased  147.6  per  cent  as  compared  with  an  increase  of  23.6 
per  cent  for  the  United  States. 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Peach  Production,  United  States  and  California,  1906-192{ 


U.S. 


c  in 
o  o 

Calif,    is 


1500 

1000 
900 
800 
700 
600 

500 
400 
300 

200 
100 


rji       lom       lOtommcn       tooc«-o»      r- 

VO  rHCO  rHCDCVJOica  U>0»f-lc>-  C\J 


lO        CM        O 

(T>  CO         ^ 

o      r~      CO 


(T>  O  Oi 
CD  <T>  •-* 
O  W        r-t 


O  O  OOr-<f-«r-».HrH  r-lrHrH 

CT>  CT>  CT» 


a»      o      rH     CM      to      -*     in 

rM         CM  CM         CM  CM  CM        CM 

cr>  cr> 


Years 

Fig.  2.* — Data  from  tables  19  and  20.  Equation  for  lines  of  trend  are:  United 
States,  2/  =  961.8  +  11.96rr;  California,  i/  =  157.46  +  12.23^.  The  slope  of  the 
trend  lines  indicates  the  rate  of  growth. 

Main  Peach  Producing  States. — California  is  the  foremost  peach 
producing  state  in  the  Union  as  shown  in  figure  3,  producing  32  per 
cent  of  the  total.  Georgia  is  next  followed  by  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Texas,  etc. 

Changes  in  Peach  Producing  Areas. — The  net  increase  of  peach 
production  in  the  United  States  is  the  resultant  of  increases  in  some 
states  and  decreases  in  other  states  as  shown  in  figure  4.  From  1911 
to  1925  total  peach  production  increased  16.4  per  cent.  In  New  Jersey 
production  increased  430  per  cent,  in  Utah  117  per  cent,  and  in  Cali- 
fornia 105  per  cent.  The  states  of  Illinois,  Michigan,  Arkansas,  and 
Missouri  show  a  decrease  of  over  50  per  cent.  The  data  presented  in 
figure  4  indicate  that  the  production  areas  are  shifting  toward  the 
localities  in  which  peaches  can  be  produced  at  the  lowest  comparative 

*  The  short  explanations  underneath  the  illustrations  in  this  circular  are 
intended  primarily  for  those  who  are  interested  in  statistical  methods.  An 
understanding  of  the  equations  of  the  trend  lines  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
read  the  circular  intelligently. 


Belative  Imfortance  of  Main  Peach  Producing  States 
(Average  Production,  1920-1924) 


state                1000  bu. 

Per 

cent 

California 

14,954 

32.0 

Georgia 

5,768 

12.3 

New  York 

2,316 

5.0 

New  Jersey 

1,935 

4.1 

Texas 

1,704 

•  3.6 

Penneylvania 

1,506 

3.2 

Ohio 

1,477 

3.2 

Tennessee 

1,346 

2.9 

Arkansas 

1,280 

2.7 

North  Carolina 

1,191 

2.6 

Missouri 

1,125 

2.4 

Oklahoma 

1,101 

2.4 

Alabama 

1,005 

2.1 

Michigan 

977 

2.1 

Colorado 

810 

1.7 

Kentucky 

787 

1.7 

Virginia 

782 

1.7 

Utah 

734 

1.6 

Washington 

726 

1.6 

South  Carolina 

719 

1.5 

Illinois 

704 

1.5 

West  Virginia 

644 

1.4 

Waryland 

510 

1.1 

All  others 

2,614 

5.6 

Total 

46,715 

100.0 

Fig.  3. — Data  from  table  16.  All  states  that  had  an  average  production  of 
more  than  500,000  bushels  during  the  five-year  period,  1920-1924  are  listed 
separately.  The  states  that  had  an  average  production  of  less  than  500,000 
bushels  are  included  in  all  others. 


Percentage  Increase  or  Decrease  in  Trends  of  Peach  Production  in  Main 
Peach  Producing  States,  1911-1925 

Percent 
♦120 

♦100     |_J  |_ 


Fig.  4. — Data  from  table  16.  A  straight  line  of  trend  was  fitted  to  the  pro- 
duction figures  of  each  of  the  states.  The  form  of  the  equation  used  is 
y  =  a-{-'bx. 


10 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


cost.  Three  of  the  factors  which  are  causing-  this  change  are  (1)  the 
amount  of  new  plantings  necessary  to  maintain  the  bearing  acreage, 
(2)  the  yearly  fluctuations  in  production,  and  (3)  the  yield  per  acre. 
1.  Since  the  cost  of  planting  is  one  of  the  important  costs  in  the 
production  of  peaches,  an  area  in  which  the  ratio  necessary  to  main- 
tain the  bearing  acreage  is  high,  is  at  a  disadvantage  to  other  areas  in 
which  the  ratio  is  Ioav,  providing  other  things  are  equal.    And  other 

Peach  Production,  California  and  Michigan,  1911-1925 


Calif 


o 

o  "*    8    ^ 


20,000 


10,000 
9,000 
8,000 
7,000 
6,000 


0>         O        <-H        CJ         to         ^        W 
CM        CM         C\J         CM         CM        CM 


Year: 


Fig,  5. — Data  from  table  16.     Equations  for  lines  of  trend  are:  California, 
y  —  8409.5  +  630.5a;;    Michigan,    y  =  1659.9  —  76.7a;. 


1^26]  CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES  11 

things  being  equal,  the  acreage  in  those  areas  which  have  the  least 
favorable  ratios  will  gradually  decline,  and  the  acreage  in  those  areas 
which  have  more  favorable  ratios  will  gradually  increase.  For  example, 
in  1909  Michigan  had  103  non-bearing  trees  for  each  100  bearing  trees, 
and  yet  her  bearing  acreage  decreased  31  per  cent  during  the  following 
ten-year  period.  On  the  other  hand,  California  had  only  56  non- 
bearing  trees  for  each  100  bearing  trees  in  1909,  and  her  bearing 
acreage  increased  16  per  cent  during  the  same  period. 

2.  A  second  factor  causing  this  shift  is  the  relative  variation  in 
production  from  year  to  year.  In  some  areas  unfavorable  weather 
conditions,  such  as  freezing,  is  apt  to  reduce  the  crop  materially. 
Where  such  conditions  prevail  the  risk  of  producing  peaches  is  great, 
and  consequently  the  cost  of  bearing  the  risk  is  high.  The  tendency, 
therefore,  is  for  production  to  be  reduced  in  areas  having  a  large  varia- 
tion and  to  be  increased  in  areas  where  the  variation  is  small.  This 
tendency  is  illustrated  in  figure  5.  In  Michigan  the  relative  variation 
in  production  for  the  years  1911  to  1925  was  51.6  per  cent,  as  compared 
with  a  relative  variation  of  14.7  per  cent  in  California.  During  this 
period  Michigan  peach  production  decreased  58.5  per  cent  while 
California  production  increased  105  per  cent. 

3.  The  influence  of  the  yield  per  acre  upon  the  costs  of  production 
for  a  particular  locality  in  California  is  discussed  on  page  48.  It  is 
apparent  that  there  is  a  tendency  for  the  cost  per  ton  to  decrease  as 
the  yield  per  acre  is  increased.  This  tendency  is  in  part  responsible 
for  the  shifting  of  the  producing  area  toward  those  sections  in  which  a 
high  yield  can  be  obtained,  and  helps  to  explain  why  peach  production 
in  the  United  States  has  increased  despite  a  decrease  in  bearing  acreage. 

The  shift  in  the  peach  producing  areas  is  significant.  It  makes 
possible  a  lower  cost  of  production,  and  consequently  enables  peach 
growers  to  make  a  profit  at  lower  prices.  Since  profits  are  the  main 
incentive  for  increasing  production,  and  since  increased  production 
normally  means  lower  prices,  California  growers  will  probably  be  sub- 
jected to  keener  competition  from  other  areas. 

As  production  shifts  to  more  favorable  areas,  the  fluctuations  from 
year  to  year  will  probably  decrease,  resulting  in  a  more  stabilized  con- 
dition. The  chief  cause  of  fluctuation  in  production  is  due  to  climatic 
conditions  as  shown  in  figure  6.  Thus  production  fluctuates  in  the 
same  direction  and  to  nearly  the  same  extent  as  does  the  condition  of 
the  crop.  Because  of  this,  farmers  can  do  very  little  to  stabilize  pro- 
duction, except  as  they  individually  adjust  their  own  production  to 
more  favorable  areas. 


12 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 


United  States  Peach  Production  as  a  Percentage  of  the  Secular  Trend 

AND  Condition  of  the  Crop  as  a  Percentage  of  the 

Normal  Crop,  1906-1925 


Per- 
cent 
140 

130 

120 

110 
100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 


/ 

, 

/ 

r 

-Pn 

\dcfi  -Hot 

1 

i 

/ 

\ 

i 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

I 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

1 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

V 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\i 

\ 

1 

i 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

A 

\ 

\ 

f 

\ 

\ 

/  / 

V 

J 

V 

1 

\ 

J 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

y 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

y 

^^ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

f 

\ 

1 

^ 

0 

y 

\ 

1 

\ 

Cor 

dif 

on 

of 

Cro 

J 



_J 

Years 

Fig,  6. — Data  on  production;  line  of  trend  fitted  to  production  figures,  see 
figure  2,  and  the  yearly  items  figured  as  a  percentage  of  the  line  of  trend.  Data 
on  condition  of  crop:  Years  1906-1923  from  Yearbook  U.S.D.A.,  1923,  p.  746. 
Years  1924-1925  from  E.  E.  Kaufman.  The  percentage  condition  of  the  crop 
is  based  upon  the  influence  of  the  climatic  conditions  upon  yield. 


Utilization  of  the  United  States  Peach  Crop. — The  five-year  average 
production,  1920-1924,  of  all  peaches  in  the  United  States  was 
1,121,160  tons,  of  which  72.4  per  cent  was  marketed  fresh,  15.2  per  cent 
canned,  and  12.4  per  cent  dried.  The  proportion  of  the  crop  used  in 
the  different  ways  varies  from  year  to  year  as  indicated  in  figure  7. 
From  1906  to  1925  the  proportion  of  the  total  crop  marketed  fresh  has 
declined  ;  the  proportion  canned  has  increased,  particularly  since  1915 ; 
and  although  the  proportion  dried  increased  from  1906  to  1913,  it  has 
declined  during  the  latter  years  of  this  period. 

In  actual  tons,  fresh  peach  production  has  increased  slighly,  about 
3  per  cent,  during  the  20-year  period  (see  fig.  8).     Since  1906,  the 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


Percentage  of  United  States'  Peaches  Shipped  Fresh,  Dried,  and  Canned, 

1906-1925 


in        t^ 

CO            t^ 

c 

CC 

81.3 
81.9 
80.5 
81.8 
70.4 
72.8 
82.9 
71,7 
70.1 
71.2 
70.6 
71.0 
67.8 
72.3 
70.5 
78.0 
69.7 

Drled       g  '^       ". 

ff 

0»0>^r-             OOlOiHtOCO             OiOr>-             lOrieOO* 

i-  i 

c 

C\JrHr-tCJ              r-t              -^r-ir-OOrt              lOf}-*              rltOOt- 

Canned     '^   '^       °. 

COWrHlO              O              (0<0<V»«00              -^lOlO              CM'^t^r* 

100 

o 

t> 

IT 

i       V 

a       CC 

If 

>          a 

3             0 

0           i£ 

i 

'           "- 

A              If 

•<; 

h            lO            I^             O            'O            ^ 

1    1    i 

CM 
CM 

90 

^. 

80 

\ 

^' 

^-i» 

_. 

■"    •• 



. 

jf 

y 

70 

\ 

y 

/ 

\ 

-...-^s 

rrt 

7Sh 

y 

60 

50 

30 

20 

Dri 

7d^ 

\  J" 

Conn^ — 

___      ^ 

yjf 

^^^ 

-— - 

.-. 



r 

'^^ 

*^^ 

^^ 

'^ 

'•s^ 

:r:= 

10 

»— 

— «S 

'**'«^ 



#^ 

1      ■ 

— ^ 

-^^ 



^ 

*^ 

0 

Years 

Fig.    7.— Data  from   table   19. 


production  of  canned  peaches  has  increased  331  per  cent,  or  at  a  uni- 
form rate  of  7.9  per  cent  a  year.  Dried  peach  production  shows  two 
distinct  movements;  a  rapidly  increasing  production  during  the  first 
half  of  the  period  and  a  decreasing  production  during  the  latter  half 
of  the  period. 

California's  Place  in  the  Peach  Industry. — At  the  present  time 
California  produces  practically  all  of  the  United  States  tonnage  of 
dried  and  canned  peaches  (see  fig.  9).  Dried  peach  production  has, 
for  many  years  at  least,  been  confined  entirely  to  California.  In  1906 
approximately  72  per  cent  of  the  canned  peaches  were  produced  in 
this  state.  This  percentage  increased  steadily  up  to  1921,  reaching  a 
high  point  of  98  per  cent  in  that  year;  and  since  then  has  remained  at 
about  the  same  point.  Our  interstate  shipments  of  fresh  peaches,  how- 
ever, are  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  total  United  States  fresh  peach 
production,  although  they  are  becoming  increasingly  important. 


14 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Production  of  Fresh,  Dried,  and  Canned  Peaches,  United  States, 

1906-1925 


Fresh 


Dried 


Canned 


^^ 

-* 

r-. 

CM 

■^ 

t>- 

o 

t>- 

^ 

VO 

o» 

lO 

o» 

00 

<T> 

<T* 

5 

rf 

o> 

-^l* 

w 

t^ 

a> 

t^ 

-^J" 

r-t 

o 

cr» 

p- 

CM 

O 

m 

«o 

CT> 

'O 

o 

«o 

en 

CM 

»o 

CO 

la 

00 

l>- 

lO 

o> 

t< 

•H 

»H 

o   ^ 

to 

t- 

O 

CO 

lO 

o 

to 

to 

t>- 

^ 

UJ 

o 

to 

a» 

«o 

rH 

O    U5 

o 

00 

r-t 

i-t 

o^ 

o 
I-t 

o 

cvj 

t^ 

r-l 
CM 

r-« 

CT> 

rH 

rH 
r-i 

1500 


1000    ^ 


O  OOOrHrirHiHrHrHrHrH 


CT>    O    rH   CM    to    •^   lO 
rH    CM    CM    CM    CM    CM   CM 


Years 


Fig.  8. — Data  from  table  19.  Dried  and  canned  figures  converted  to  a  fresh 
ton  basis.  Equations  for  lines  of  trend  are:  Fresh,  1/  =  804.37  +  1.34a;;  Canned, 
log  2/=l-7078o  +  .03339a;;  Dried,  for  years  1906-1915,  y —  77 AQ  +  11.72a;;  for 
years  1916-1925,  y  =  176.44  —  6.88a;. 


Utilization  of  the  California  Peach  Crop. — That  California  is 
primarily  a  drying  and  canning  peach  producing  state  may  be  seen 
from  figure  10.  The  five-year  average  commercial  production,  1920- 
1924,  was  338,638  tons,  of  which  48.7  per  cent  was  canned,  41.2  per 
cent  dried,  and  10.1  per  cent  shipped  fresh.  During  the  20-year  period, 
1906-1925,  approximately  the  same  proportion  of  the  crop  has  been 
shipped  fresh,  but  the  position  of  dried  and  canned  peaches  has  been 
reversed.     Prior  to  1920,  dried  peaches  were  the  most  important,  but 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


15 


Percentage  of  United  States^  Dried,  Canned,  and  Fresh  Peaches  Produced 

IN  California,  1906-1925 


Dried         ^     o 
c     "■ 

o 

Canned       " 

<o 

Fresh 

100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 


a>        (T> 


3      S 

O 

CT» 

O^ 

Ov 

a. 

a> 

0^ 

&; 

<J> 

o» 

(7> 

o» 

CT. 

O 

o 

6 

6 

6 

-•      ? 

§ 

s 

00 

2 

i 

CO 

00 

CO 

s 

s 

to 

CTV 

s 

CO 

s: 

S; 

§; 

CO 

to 

^ 

Ch 

<o 

a> 

to 

<o 

<£> 

o 

<o 

t- 

r^ 

00 

<o 

CD 

t^ 

CVJ 

«> 

r^ 

w 

■;)• 

w 

to 

r^ 

^ 

C\J 

r^ 

to 

lO 

•-0 

to 

'I' 

t- 

w 

in 

CM 

•* 

^< 

-On 

ed 

^ 

.^ 

"-- 

__  ^ 

. 

^ 

/ 

^"~ 

Cot 

met 

iJ 

Frt 

^sh- 

\ 

«.. 

. 

— , 



"^ 

.^ 

"■^ 

I 



.-^ 

'•^^ 

,.— 



*^ 

.--' 

•-^ 

-^•' 

cj         to         «*         to         <o        r- 


Fig.  9. — Data  from  tables  19  and  20. 


Percentage  of  California's  Commercial  Production  Shipped  Fresh,  Canned, 

and  Dried,  1906-1925 


Dried 
Canned 


c 

)         c 

>          CO         00 

s>        to 

t 

0             O           CT>            O 

o 

3 

n        ^       CVJ        c 

D            O 

a 

O          r-l 

in         <o         in         3 

3     S 

5       S      3      3       S 

S      5      ?     3      S      S 

^     3    S 

g     'O            rH             o           w 

D           OJ 

in         'i'        CT.        lO         •* 

O            lO           O           OD             ■#            O 

M        in      w 

Pero 
4     39 

9     31 

2     30 

0     22 

e          ^ 

cxj          CM        ?}         w          o 

s    5    ^    :?    ^    s 

*           O^ 

CM         lo        CM        in         u> 

OCT.«OOCOO               .«M^ 

«o         in         o         «o         cvi        to 
[no 

CD             CT^           CO            t-              OJ 

CO            •*            CO           rH             to            r- 

H        r-       o 

90 

70 

/ 

'"«*_^ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

^-^ 

N, 

Dri 

e^ 

y 

50 

/ 

N 

/ 

N 

" 

V 

y 

V 

N 

^ 

/ 

CoA 

nee 

''>) 

\ 

Xj 

> 

*^.^ 

/ 

i 

30 
20 

\ 

I 

/ 

\ 

\ 

^ 

x" 

N 

^ 

/ 

^ 

^'^ 

rr6 

sh^ 

> 

^.y 

•^, 



lJ 

^•' 

N, 

\ 

_^ 

— •- 

^' 

..-— 

•— 

— "• 

~. 

' 

r  ■ 

N 

y 

--^" 

0 

^_ 

o         o         o         o 


Fig.  10.— Data  from  table  20. 


16 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


in  1920  canned  peaches  became  the  most  important,  and  have  con- 
tinued to  be  so  since  that  year.  The  turning  point  in  the  relative  posi- 
tion of  dried  and  canned  peaches  appears  to  have  taken  place  in  1913, 
Since  then,  the  proportion  of  the  total  crop  dried  has  steadily 
decreased,  and  the  proportion  canned  has  steadily  increased. 

Figure  11  shows  the  trends  cf  the  production  of  fresh,  dried  and 
canned  peaches  in  California. 


Commercial  Production  of  Fresh,  Dried  and  Canned  Peaches,  California, 

1906-1925 


Dried 


Canned 


8    >« 

§  S 

o 


^       00     ■*      to      to 

lO         kO        VO         CT>        t^ 


t 


t>-  u>  lO 
lO  to  iH 
rH  rH         C\J 


5:    5 

r-i        CM 


Fresh 


<o      t-     CO     a» 
o      o     o     o 


<J»      O      iH      M      to      ■<*      «n 

fH         CM         CV2         CJ         CVj         CM        CM 


Years 


Fig.  11. — Data  from  table  20.  Figures  for  dried  and  canned  peaches  con- 
verted to  a  fresh  ton  basis.  Equations  for  lines  of  trend  are:  Dried,  for  years 
1906-1915,  2/=  77.46 +  11. 72a;;  for  years  1916-1925,  ?/  =  176.44  —  6.88a-; 
Canned,   log  2/ =  1.58271 -f  .03996ar;    Fresh,   2/ z=  17.177  +  1.067a;. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


17 


Peach  Acreage,  California. — Comparable  data  on  bearing  and  non- 
bearing"  acreage,  for  consecutive  years,  are  available  only  since  1921. 
This  information  is  presented  in  table  1. 


Table  1. — Estimated  Peach  Acreage,  California,  1922-1925 

1922  1923 

Bearing 107,786  115,618 

Non-bearing 22,518  24,579 

New  planting 18,788  28,885  10,484 

Data  from  Table  21.    Data  for  the  census  years  of  1910  and  1920  are  given  in  Table  15 


1924 

1925 

20,947 

131,508 

28,455 

42,914 

There  has  been  a  steadj^  increase  in  bearing  acreage  during  this 
four-year  period.  Non-bearing  acreage  shows  a  large  increase  in  1925 
over  the  previous  years.  This  increase  was  caused  mainly  by  the 
amount  of  new  plantings  in  1923. 

Percentage   of   California's   Peach    Acreage,   Bearing   and   Non-bearing    in 


County 

Fresno 

Tulare 

Sutter 

Stanislaus 

San  Bernardino 

Merced 

Placer 

San  Joaquin 

Riverside 

Los  Angeles 

Kings 

Santa  Clara 

Solano 

Madera 

Butte 

Sacramento 

San  Diego 

Yolo 

Tehama 

Yuba 

San  Luis  Obispo 


Percen-f 

Bear/ng  Nan -bear 
^■i     7777-X 

17.5   .8  ra 

9.0 


6.8 
6.6 
6.5 
6.4 
6.3 
4.3 
4.1 
4.0 
3.9 
3.8 
2.7 
2.1 
2.0 
1.9 
1.7 
1.3 
1.3 
1.1 
.9 


12.2    ^}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}m}}}}}}m}}^ZZZZZ 
11.0    ' 


7.3 

3.5 


//////////////////////, 


2.1    ^ 


mm 


2.6 
2.7 
2.0 
1.0 
.9 
1.2 
.9 


9 10 UL 


772ZZ27ZZZZZ27ZZZ77ZZ7^ZZ2Z2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2\ 


zzzzzzzzzzzr 


^»»»))\ 


Hf 


3.7  ^^^9? 


9  2H 


13     14 


J£ IU8 


Fig.  12.— Data  from  table  21. 


Figure  12  shows  the  percentage  of  bearing  and  non-bearing  acreage 
in  the  main  peach  producing  counties  in  California  in  1925.  Fresno 
County  had  the  largest  bearing  acreage,  followed  by  Tulare,  Sutter, 
Stanislaus,  San  Bernardino,  Merced  and  Placer.  Sixty  per  cent  of 
all  bearing  acres  in  California  were  in  these  seven  counties.  Merced 
County  had  the  largest  number  of  non-bearing  acres,  followed  by 
Tulare,  Sutter,  Stanislaus,  Sacramento  and  Yuba. 


18 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Although  data  on  new  plantings,  by  counties,  for  a  period  of  years 
are  not  available,  it  is  possible  to  ascertain,  in  a  general  way,  what  is 
taking  place  in  the  different  sections  of  the  state,  by  computing  the 
number  of  non-bearing  acres  for  each  100  bearing  acres.  The  ratio  of 
non-bearing  to  bearing  acreage  in  each  of  the  main  peach  producing 
counties  is  shown  in  figure  13. 

Ratio  of   Non-bearing  to   Bearing   Peach  Acreage,   Main   Peach   Producing 
Counties,  California,  1925 


130 
120 
110  |— 1 

100 
90 
60 
70 
60 
60 
40 
30 
20 
10 


L 


Ratio  necessary  to  maintain 

present  bearing  acreage 


hrHTTTnT 


hd      to 


!i 


lO  ^  <•  Tj. 


«        g        o 


<0  bO  .H 

^        a        VI        rt 


5     -A 


fa        V) 


I    ^ 


Fig.  13.— Data  from  table  21. 


An  increase  in  peach  production  may  be  expected  in  those  counties 
which  have  more  than  33  non-bearing  acres  for  each  100  bearing  acres, 
and  a  decrease  may  be  expected  in  those  counties  which  have  a  ratio  of 
less  than  33. 

Clingstone  and  Freestone  peach  acreages  are  available  only  for  the 
year  1925.  In  that  year  there  were  58,592  bearing  and  36,768  non- 
bearing  acres  of  Clingstones,  and  72,592  bearing  and  16,430  non- 
bearing  acres  of  Freestones.*  There  were,  therefore,  62  non-bearing 
acres  for  each  100  bearing  acres  of  Clingstones  and  23  non-bearing 


California  Crop  Keport,  p.  21,   1924. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


19 


acres  for  each  100  bearing  acres  of  Freestones.  These  figures  indicate 
that  there  will  be  an  increase  in  the  Clingstone  bearing  acreage,  and 
a  decrease  in  the  Freestone  bearing  acreage  during  the  next  few  years. 
The  decrease  in  the  Freestone  bearing  acreage  appears  to  be  most 
pronounced  in  those  sections  devoted  mainly  to  the  production  of  dry- 
ing peaches.  In  Fresno  County,  for  example,  which  has  17.5  per  cent 
of  the  bearing  acreage  in  the  state  in  1925,  there  were  only  2  non- 
bearing  acres  for  each  100  bearing  acres. 


CANNING  PEACHES 

Varieties  of  Canning  Peaches. — Both  Clingstone  and  Freestone 
peach  varieties  are  canned.  Clingstone  varieties  are  used  almost 
entirely  for  canning,  while  Freestone  varieties  are  also  dried  and 
shipped  fresh.  The  Lovell  is  the  main  Freestone  variety  used  for 
canning,  although  a  small  portion  of  the  Elbertas  and  Muirs  are 
canned.  Elbertas,  however,  are  used  mainly  for  shipping,  and  Muirs 
are  used  mainly  for  drying. 

Peaches,  Main  California  Canning  Clingstone  Varieties  and  Time  of 
EiPENiNG,  Season  1925 


Variety 
Tuscan 

Time  of 
Ripenbig 

July          9-Aug. 

12 

Hauss 

July 

27.Aug. 

24 

Palora 

July 

2 9- Aug. 

30 

Johnson 

July 

30-/xig. 

20 

Peaks 

July 

30-Aug. 

27 

Orange 

July 

30-Aug. 

27 

Walton 

July 

31-Aug. 

13 

McDevitt 

Aug. 

11-Aug. 

21 

Albright 

Aug. 

11-Aug. 

21 

Phillips 

Aug. 

19-Sept 

24 

Levi 

Sept. 

11-Oct. 

4 

July  Aug.  Sept, 

^     \^  22  2g     ?     ],?   1,9  S6     ^     9,     1)5  g? 


Oct. 

Q  ,7  1^  2;   ;^6 


Fig.  14. — Data  from  California  Canning  Peach  Growers. 


The  Clingstone  canning  season  normally  extends  from  the  second 
week  in  July  to  the  first  week  in  October,  as  shown  in  figure  14.  The 
bulk  of  the  peaches,  however,  are  canned  during  August. 


20  CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 

Canned  Peach  Production,  California,  1906-1925 

0) 

Clingstone    St-      t>-cotooiocarHa>too'<^too»r-tt>-cMtovoin 

"^  rH         rH  r-l         rH  rH       C\J 

Freestone     Sw      Tfooevji-<u)'*»iio^Qooc\i     o<ooorHO     caoo 

XCM         CMCVIr-lWCVl         rH«\IWrHCMtOtO-^tOW«C\J         C\JM 


200  — -| i "n"? — ri^T'ffS 

jjjQ  ,., .       " 4~ , ". .     ".,_..  ,|  ,■■■■    1  ■      T/ ^>  Hj  /| 

1                   1                 ^v        i   1          ^i 

^^^      =iz-i-'      .1    r  -;;--  =ji4s -Ii^-l!    --|-j=;  =^^-  _|ii'- ---i--;- =*i-i  :  .  :  I    ^^-4-^&^f^-     I^F   =*' ^""  :^^            :-;-i-T--- 

90     EE4=^  ;i-k  =P  L  1^4:^  =  Fp  i|i=  :£|3^  =gi;  [^r^  -i^  4-i^  L^'-jfeFr  ^-f -i-  ^^1^;  '1^  =i^-'  '"i-;-  ^H 

60     -f-j--  ^E|i|:  -^l-i "-  -t  -^  2p^  ::il  t-;  3=£  =t£  ^|=j-  3^  ^C  B=^  i^-" '-:  r-t  ^  e3|,^  -^  i-M  -^e 

'^^    ^-  J=^  eJEIe  :z--^ eJ^  ^--jzp  E^i;  £^ ^■-  ^^^  4^_1^  irT -^ i=  ^  4i-  i^:  -4itE  -eh: 

^"     =-E--EF3^3--S^--#S^^^  =  3EE£^|EE^-:^^-^^:i|^^ 

;;  l|lil|il|II*|K|^tti:( 

-n  ^illBp^^fflt  nffii W^P^tt^^^^ 

30    — -^x^k:  p,^-,'- M-=-=  ~~-  —  ^-^-^  H-=^-M-  --  -  +4-  ^H^"-"^"^ 

Hd#PMMiTOPTffpjffirHli^ffM 

i-:EEE|2iEEEEE^«E;EEEEEEEE:E|4||:EEE:EEEEEEEE+EE:^ 

■  1 "   "    "   "     "                                                  1                                      1                                              -    .    .  .  -          _| 

L                                                                                          i_                   1 

1 

^ 

10  ::::::::::::: x 'x x:.::.::.::^:.: 

OC-a>0>OrHCMt0'!j"»0«i)t^00<y>OrHc\J(0^iO 
O  OOOrHrHrHrHr-trHrHrHrHrHCNJCMCMCJ  MCM 

0»  CT>  0»  CT»  0> 

Years 

Fig.  15. — Data  from  table  17.  Freestone  production  shows  no  pronounced 
secular  trend.  The  equation  of  the  trend  of  Clingstone  production  is  log 
2/ =  1.29031  +  .05324a;. 


Per  Capita  Production  of  Canned  Peaches,  United  States,  1906-1925 


OtO  C\JCOr-l^<id*iO*OCMI>-Or-tO  iTJCM  iDO         CMJN'^J* 


o       c-      00      a>      o 

O  O  O         O  rH 


•H       CV2        to 


in      vo     c^ 


<J\       O  iH        CM         «        "*        irt 

rH       CM  CM         CM  CM        CM        CM 


Years 


Fig.  16. — Data  from  table  17.  Data  converted  to  a  fresh  basis.  Production 
figures  divided  by  population  for  corresponding  years.  Equation  for  line  of 
trend  is  log  y  =  .11394  +  .0'2732a;. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


21 


Canned  Peach  Production^  California. — The  total  canned  peach 
production  in  California  increased  475  per  cent  from  1906  to  1925 
(see  %.  11).  This  increase  was  due  largely  to  the  rapid  increase  in 
Clingstone  peach  production,  which  increased  at  the  rate  of  15  per  cent 
a  year,  as  indicated  in  figure  15.  There  has  been  no  definite  upward 
trend  in  the  quantity  of  Freestone  peaches  canned. 

Per  Capita  Production  of  Canned  Peaches,  United  States.^The 
per  capita  production  of  canned  peaches,  in  equivalent  of  the  fresh 
product,  increased  from  1.2  pounds  in  1906  to  3.9  pounds  in  1925,  an 
increase  of  247  per  cent  (see  fig.  16). 

Candied  Peach  Exports.  —  Export  tonnage  figures  for  canned 
peaches  are  available  only  for  the  years  since  1922.  During  these 
three  years  for  which  data  are  available,  the  percentage  of  the  canned 
peach  production  going  into  export  trade  has  steadily  increased  (see 
table  2).  Approximately  15  per  cent  of  the  1924  crop  was  exported 
as  compared  to  10  per  cent  of  the  1922  crop. 

Table  2. — Exports  of  Canned  Peaches  from  the  United  States,  1923-1925 
(Year  Ending  June  30) 


Number  of  cases 

Per  cent  of  production 

Year 

exported 

exported 

1923... 

895,475 

9.8 

1924... 

825,810 

11.1 

1925... 

940,820 

14.9 

Data  from  Table  9.    The  figure  61  was  used  in  converting  number  of  pounds  to  number  of  cases. 

Main  Foreign  Markets  for  Canned  Peaches. — In  figure  17  it  will 
be  noted  that  approximately  79  per  cent  of  our  total  1924  exports  of 
canned  peaches  was  sold  in  the  United  Kingdom.     Cuba  was  our  next 


Relative  iMroPTAKTE  cf  our  Foreign  Canned  Peach  Markets,  1924 

o  o  o  <2  o  o 

^ w W ■<f tfS  yj  t~ 

United  Kingdom       862,658     78. 


Per 
Cases         Cent  2- 


Cwba 
Canada 

Germany 

France 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

All  Others 
Total 


54,562  5.0 

45,411  4.1 

16,567  1.5  pi 

14,005  1,3 

IS, 906  1.3 

13,585  1.2 

75,209  6.8 

1,095,923  100.0 


Fig.   17.— Data  from  table  3. 


most  important  foreign  market  in  1924,  followed  by  Canada,  Germany, 
France,  Belgium  and  Netherlands.  The  amount  of  canned  peaches 
exported  by  the  various  countries,  varies  from  year  to  year,  as  shown 
by  table  3. 


22  CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 

Table  3. — Exports  of  Canned  Peaches  from  the  United  States  by  Importing 

Countries,   1922-1924 
(Number  of  Cases) 

Country  1922  1923  1924 

United  Kingdom 815,725  482,988  862,658 

Cuba 12,985  52,261  54,562 

Canada 31,933  38,594  45,411 

Germany 1,734  2,280  16,587 

France 24,981  9,839  14,005 

Belgium 3,001  2,550  13,906 

Netherlands 5,521  4,697  13,585 

All  others 54,083  66,538  75,209 

Total 949,963  659,747  1,095,923 

Data  from  Table  10. 

Plaices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Canning  Peaches. — High  prices 
for  peaches  do  not  necessarily  mean  prosperity,  nor  low  prices, 
depression  for  the  peach  grower.  Prices  are  only  high  or  low  by 
comparison.  If  the  price  of  peaches  is  high  as  compared  to  the  things 
the  peach  grower  must  buy,  he  is  prosperous ;  if  they  are  low  as  com- 
pared to  the  things  he  must  buy,  he  is  not  prosperous.  Consequently, 
money  prices  must  be  converted  to  purchasing  power  in  order  to 
know  the  relative  position  of  the  peach  growers. 

The  index  of  wholesale  prices  compiled  by  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  is  used  in  converting  prices  of  peaches  to  purchasing 
power.  This  index  is  now  based  upon  404  price  series.  The  purchas- 
ing power  of  peaches,  therefore,  indicates  the  value  of  peaches  in 
exchange  for  all  commodities  at  wholesale  prices  compared  with  pre- 
war exchange  values. 

The  relative  purchasing  power  of  canning  Clingstone  and  Freestone 
peaches,  f.o.b.  growers'  shipping  points  are  shown  in  figure  18.  Two 
types  of  changes  are  apparent  in  each  of  these  curves,  (1)  a  long-time 
downward  movement,  and  (2)  short-time  fluctuations. 

1.  Long-time  changes  are  known  as  secular  trends.  Forces  deter- 
mining secular  trends  are  essentially  those  which  operate  steadily  and 
persistently  from  year  to  year,  such  as  increases  in  population, 
improvements  in  the  standard  of  living,  changing  habits  of  consump- 
tion, and  improvement  in  methods  of  production.  Consequently  the 
concept  of  secular  trend  is  a  smooth,  regular,  long-term  movement, 
that ' '  which  would  be  recorded  if  the  effects  of  all  accidental  and  con- 
flicting forces  could  be  eliminated,  leaving  only  the  effect  of  normal 
growth. ' '  * 

The  secular  trends  of  the  relative  purchasing  power  of  both  Cling- 
stone and  Freestone  peaches  have  been  constantly  downward.     From 

*  Mill,  Frederick  Cecil,  Statistical  Methods,  p.  256,  1924. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


23 


1911  to  1925  the  relative  value  of  Clingstone  peaches  declined  11  per 
cent,  and  Freestone  peaches  declined  27.9  per  cent.  The  reason  for 
the  greater  decline  in  Freestone  peaches  is  to  be  found  chiefly  in  the 
changing  demand  of  the  consumers. 


Relative  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Canning  Peaches,  F.O.B. 
Growers'  Shipping  Points,  1906-1925 


Clingstone 
Freestone 


W  r-t 


^3?^SSS^S5 

%    %    ^ 

O          O           cvj           M           to 

a        XT-         ^        ^        t~ 

o 

2    ; 

«5 

240 

/ 

\ 

160 

r  ■ 

\ 

Clir 

gsf 

,ne^^ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

S& 

'.ulc 

r^ 

-enc 

\. 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

120 

\ 

/ 

Jl 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

80 
40 

n 

\ 

"**^ 

V 

^ 

n-" 

— ^ 

r— 

-Vi 

^ 



\ 

/ 

^ 

\ 

X' 

160 
120 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 
\ 

/ 

Se 

~ulc 

■r  7 

'-en< 

^ 

Fn 

?es-i 

one 

-^ 

\ 
\ 

/ 

_:. 

^ 

1 

/ 

— — 

\ 

/ 

\ 

80 
40 
0 

\ 



^ 

"^ 

r^^ 

^ 

N  to  ^ 


O  i-l  <\J  to  ■* 

CM  W  CM  C\J  W 


Fig.  18. — Data  from  table  26.     Equations  for  lines  of  trend  are:  Clingstone, 
2/=  101.026  — .718:k;    Freestone,   y~96A  —  1.5x. 

2.  The  actual  values  fluctuate  about  the  secular  trend,  being  some- 
times above  and  sometimes  below  it.  These  fluctuations  are  caused  in 
part  by  cyclical  changes  and  in  part  by  accidental  changes.  The 
cyclical  fluctuations  are  characterized  by  more  or  less  regular  swings 
through  alternating  periods  of  depression  and  prosperity.  The  acci- 
dental changes  are  irregular  and  are,  therefore,  incapable  of  being 
foreseen. 

In  the  analysis  of  peach  prices,  the  cyclical  and  irregular  fluctua- 
tions are  not  separated,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  move- 
ments included  under  the  term  cylical  fluctuations  include  the 
irregular  changes  as  well  as  the  periodic  swings  through  the  business 
cvele. 


24 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[ClRC.  1 


The  short  time  movements  in  the  prices  of  Clingstone  and  Free- 
stone peaches  are  very  definitely  related,  as  shown  in  figure  19.  A 
change  in  the  price  of  one  is  accompanied  by  a  similar  change  in  the 
price  of  the  other.    If  the  price  asked  for  Clingstone  peaches  is  high 

Cyclical  Fluctuations   in   the   Relative   Purchasing   Power  of   California 

Canning  Peaches,  T.O.B.  Growers'  Shipping  Points, 

1906-1925 


/; 

\ 

^' 

\ 

^ 

Ci 

ingi 

■for, 

') 

Fre 

?stc 

-^' 

' 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\/ 

\ 

/ 

>< 

\ 

^T" 

____„„ 

f 

""i 

^^ 

\ 

A 

^ 

■f 

■^. 

f 

^ 

f' 

'  s 

■^ 

"^ 

1 

r 

Fig.  19. — Data  corrected  for  secular  trend. 

as  compared  to  the  price  asked  for  Freestone  peaches,  consumers  will 
buy  less  Clingstones  and  more  Freestones.  The  willingness  of  the  con- 
sumers to  substitute  one  kind  of  canned  peaches  for  the  other  brings 
about  an  early  and  exact  adjustment  between  the  prices  of  them. 

Belation  Between  C miners'  Opening  Prices  and  Growers'  Prices. — 
The  opening  price  which  canners  quote  to  the  jobbers  is  generally, 
although  not  always,  the  best  index  of  what  they  believe  the  consumers 
will  pay  for  peaches.  Does  this  price  at  which  the  canners  expect  to 
sell  the  finished  product  bear  any  significant  relationship  to  the  price 
they  pay  the  growers  for  canning  peaches  ?  This  relationship  is  illus- 
trated in  figure  20.  Two  tendencies  are  apparent :  first,  that  the  move- 
ments of  the  price  series  are  in  the  same  general  direction ;  and  second, 
that  the  canners '  opening  prices  fluctuate  less  than  the  prices  received 
by  the  growers. 

1.  The  secular  trends  in  both  cases  have  been  downward.  From 
1911  to  1925  canners'  opening  prices,  converted  to  a  purchasing  power 
basis,  declined  14.7  per  cent,  and  growers'  purchasing  power  declined 
11  per  cent.  The  cyclical  fluctuation  in  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
two  commodities  also  bear  a  close  relationship ;  that  is,  each  change  in 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


25 


Eelative  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Clingstone  Peaches, 

1911-1925 


Years 

Fig.  20. — Eelative  value  f.o.b.  growers'  shipping  points:  decline  in  secular 
trend ^11  per  cent;  relative  variation  =  35.1  per  cent.  Data  from  table  26. 
Eelative  value  canners'  opening  quotations  on  No.  2%  Choice:  decline  in 
secular  trend  =14.7  per  cent;  relative  variation  =  12.4  per  cent.  Data  from 
the  California  Packing  Corporation's  Annual,  July,  1925,  p.  6. 

the  values  of  No.  2%  Choice  is  accompanied  by  a  similar  change  in 
values  received  by  the  growers.  This  indicates  that  the  price  which 
the  grower  receives  is  largely  determined  by  the  price  which  the 
canners  believe  the  consumers  will  pay. 

2.  From  1911  to  1925  the  relative  variation  in  the  purchasing 
power  of  growers'  peaches  was  35.1  per  cent,  while  that  of  No.  2% 
Choice  was  only  12.4  per  cent.  The  reason  why  the  canners'  prices 
are  more  stable  than  growers'  prices  is  that  the  price  of  peaches  is 
only  one  of  the  costs  that  enter  into  the  finished  product.  Other  costs 
such  as  labor,  sugar,  and  cans  do  not  necessarily  fluctuate  in  the  same 
direction  nor  to  the  same  amount  as  the  prices  canners  receive  for  the 
manufactured  product. 

Relation  Between  Production  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Canning 
Peaches. — The  amount  of  Freestone  peaches  that  will  be  canned  during 
a  given  year  will  depend  in  part  upon  the  price  offered  for  canning 
peaches  as  compared  to  the  price  offered  for  dried  and  fresh  peaches. 
When  the  price  offered  for  canning  peaches  is  relatively  higher  than 
that  offered  for  dried  and  fresh  peaches,  a  portion  of  certain  varieties 
of  Freestone  peaches  which  are  normally  dried  and  shipped  fresh  will 
be  sold  to  the  canners.  This  tendency  is  illustrated  in  figure  21,  which 
shows  that  a  high  price  for  canning  Freestone  peaches  tends  to  be 
accompanied  by  a  large  pack  and  vice  versa. 


26 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Cyclical  Fluctuations  in  the  Production  and  Relative  Purchasing  Power 
OF  California  Canning  Peaches,  1906-1925 


f2 

♦1 

0 

, 

rt  ee^onips 

1 

/ 

\ 

/ 

_x 

,t>n>duii-io\   / 

\.. 

/ 

/ 

f  ^ 

\ 

\ 

i 

/ 
/ 

\ 

> 

^ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

//     ^ 

^)( 

\ 

^ 

\ 
\ 

\ 

/ 

/^ 

1 

\' 

/ 

-,\ 

>  — 

N... 

y 

-2 

> 

/ 

\ 

f 

\  LA-  'Revive  Pc  rch^sinc^ 

Po^>\ 

-^ 

/^ 

/ 

j 

L 

C// 

igs 

to/7« 

•s 

♦<- 

\/ 

\ 

/ 

S^A 

roi/c 

fc-f-U 

>/7 

/j 

r'\ 

i 

♦1 

0 

-1 

-?. 

i 

\ 

/ 

y 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\\'^ 

\ 

^^^ 

s,^ 

\ 

.\ 

/ 

/' 

f 

> 

f-^. 

V 

> 

f 

\ 

/ 

> 

\ 

/ 

>> 

•*> 

> 

/^ 

^Rehrf-i\)ie  Pcrchosin^  P<->we)r 

/ 

8      S     § 


>Hr-4t-lr-(<-i  r^»-«r^N  CJCVl  CMCMCM 

O)  o>  o> 


Years 


Fig.  21. — Data  corrected  for  secular  trend. 


The  only  outlet  for  the  bulk  of  the  Clingstone  peaches  is  canning, 
and,  therefore,  it  might  be  expected  that  the  growers  would  receive  a 
high  price  for  a  small  crop  and  a  low  price  for  a  large  crop.  But  such 
is  not  the  case  as  shown  in  figure  21.  Because  of  other  complicating 
factors  there  seems  to  be  no  definite  prevailing  relationship  between 
production  and  price.  The  possibility  of  varying  the  pack  of  Freestone 
peaches  according  to  the  price  offered  is  one  of  the  important  compli- 
cating factors.  If  the  Clingstone  peach  crop  is  small,  making  for  a 
high  price,  the  possibility  of  obtaining  a  large  quantity  of  Freestone 
peaches  will  prevent  the  price  from  going  as  high  as  it  otherwise 
would ;  and  conversely,  the  withdrawing  of  a  portion  of  peaches  which 
are  normally  canned  when  the  Clingstone  crop  is  large  prevents  the 
price  from  going  as  low  as  it  otherwise  would. 

A  second  complicating  factor  is  the  influence  of  a  carryover  on 
the  following  year's  price.  In  1922  the  production  of  Clingstone 
peaches  was  large,  and  the  growers  obtained  a  high  price,  mainly 
because  the  canners  were  able  to  dispose  of  the  small  crop  of  1921  on 
an  advancing  price  level.  The  price  which  the  canners  paid  the 
growers,  however,  was  too  high  to  enable  them  to  dispose  of  the  crop 
profitably.  A  declining  price  trend  developed,  resulting  in  a  carry- 
over of  approximately  2,000,000  cases.    Although  the  1923  Clingstone 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES  27 

crop  was  much  smaller  than  that  of  1922,  canners  were  not  willing  to 
buy  after  their  unfortunate  experience  with  the  previous  crop,  and  it 
was  with  considerable  difficulty  that  peach  growers  were  able  to  obtain 
$30  per  ton  as  compared  to  $60  per  ton  in  1922.  A  similar  situation 
prevailed  with  most  of  the  canning  fruits  in  California.* 

A  third  complicating  factor  is  the  competition  of  other  canned 
fruits,  particularly  pineapples,  pears,  apricots,  and  cherries.  The  size 
of  the  packs  of  these  fruits  and  the  prices  at  which  they  are  offered  to 
consumers  exert  an  important  influence  on  the  price  at  which  a  given 
sized  pack  of  canned  peaches  can  be  sold. 

These  three  illustrations  indicate  that  the  factors  determining  the 
price  of  peaches  are  extremely  complex.  A  detailed  study  of  them, 
however,  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  circular. 


DRIED    PEACHES 

Muirs  and  Lovells  are  the  main  varieties  of  peaches  utilized  for 
drying.  Muirs  are  primarily  used  only  for  drying,  but  Lovells  are 
also  used  for  canning  and  fresh  shipments. 

The  bulk  of  dried  peaches  are  produced  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley, 
mainly  in  the  counties  of  Fresno,  Tulare,  Merced,  Stanislaus  and 
Kings. 

Production  of  Dried  Peaches. — The  production  of  dried  peaches 
from  1906  to  1925  is  shown  by  the  upper  curve  in  figure  22.  There 
are  two  distinct  trends  apparent  in  this  curve,  (1)  an  upward  trend 
during  the  first  half  of  the  period,  and  (2)  a  downward  trend  during 
the  latter  half  of  the  period.  In  1915  the  trend  of  production  was 
approximately  136  per  cent  higher  than  in  1906,  and  in  1925  it  was 
35  per  cent  lower  than  in  1916. 

Exports  of  Dried  Peaches. — In  figure  22  it  will  be  noted  that 
exports  of  dried  peaches  increased  more  rapidly  than  production  dur- 
ing the  period  from  1906  to  1915.  Since  1915  the  trend  of  exports  has 
declined,  this  decline  being  at  approximately  the  same  rate  as  the 
decline  in  production. 

The  exports  of  dried  peaches  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  production 
are  shown  in  figure  23.  The  secular  trend  of  per  cent  exported  was 
upward  during  the  first  half  of  the  period,  and  during  the  latter  half 
of  the  period  it  remained  at  approximately  the  same  level. 


*  Interview  F.  B.  Scliinitt,  California  Canning  Peach  Growers,  Feb.  15,  1926. 


28 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


United  States'  Dried  Peach  Production  and  Exports,  1906-1924 


Prod.    1 

i 

§ 

§ 

8 

§ 

CM 

§ 

o 

s 

1 

g 

ca 

§ 

§ 

i. 

8 

o 

§ 

i 

1 

i 

i 

i 

o 

in 
i-i 

to 

O 
CM 

in 

CM 

CM 

?5 

in 

to 

s 

CO 

CVj 

CJ> 

to 

o 

CM 

in 
to 

CM 

i-t 

CM 

CO 
CM 

^ 

CM 

JS 

Q 

Exports 

o 
S5 

in 

o 

to 

to 

r-i 

CM 

in 

CM 

to 

to 

CM 

i 

1 

r-4 

CO 

Oi 

it 

•> 

CO 

O 

to 

-. 

1 

I-*         r-i         :0         CM 

tOlOC*tO'^CvJCM«0»-<lOCM         tOCM 

40.000     G  ■,^.  f^   ~~^    -i    i. 

^^- to^^^'^^^-%-^-^^^ 

p:^"  ■■■'   - 

'          J5  7Cij  far     J  "^^ 

IttB^syii^lli^^ 

rnj  ^j*  ^^  T"-^  ^^'^     '-''  ^f^  ^^  -^\ 

20,000  -rjr-T^  ^S  ^^  ^r  # 

|liii=^l||^|p 

^gi-:i-i^-it 

l^EilB^it^- 

"'"=-'#^t3Ei:=p 

^  1  #    '                       1 

III    '    ' 

]/     1      1             j 

!                                          i 

M           ' 

m           \                  i              ' 

II                                1 

M  1  r  T  ^ 

ill                  '    i 

_      _         Li       ..         T 

i    4  1  _LLxL  IL 

1  n  nnn  f'        '  '                1      M 

1               1     1  TI    T--n 

•     i  1     1  1'   1  :   it 

r':-':'   -1-:^  :;-'    k; 

9,000    ,..,^-:  .:--;:p^^^ 
8,000  -^n^n^^^^J 

I^BirHE-^-T-^ 

ii|%E^:i^-,^^ 

6,000  -7:^--— -^^|=^^i 

-tepSBiP^Hp 

5,000  : ;          ^  :    ;^    .  ^ 

4,000                -^^E-— ^ 
3,000  ^-^--^--|^| 

^M|i 

3.000  i^l^lH^ 

i^ppMI 

^  =  ±#i?±^ 

T      ^'i         1    f!   1    Ti     "i 

1    1  1      1    1  1            '    i  i    '  1      ' 

i       1       1       i 

1  1      '    i  1                  i      '    1  ' 

n  '^   M     1 

..^ j_4_i^D_j^  jTpij 

.i..rrr-r::  _^.    z   "     jjt   -Jl±] 

'  i  J  !     L  L      1. 

1     i  !     ■  :     '  1    .  !     1       L           ! 

^1     n     1  1    1  1 

1 J     1     M     t  1     i 

TiTii-J        -i^f'^           ^ 

T  n  ±r  xt    1  r 

1      AAA                         /      n-      1     j         III 

1    1I    '-i  1     r  1  !    1       -tTl 

T'Ti  li-- -n-iT 

1,000     i   ;       =  /             ^L '       i  !      ; 

:;-!  "i-;^  -&:^  .^  i-   ^-:v 

900           •          /                                      ;.     ^ 

700  -^/— — -:-^  — - 

600    -jiy     1     ::5- j-Mlii;- 

^-f-^^H:::^-- T- ^ -^.^^ 

-T-^^-r;-^^-^.^ 

500  L^^W-l-h"[44- 1  Ml! 

^h^t;-^-^S 

COO>Or-«CM  lO'^lO 

i-irHCMCMCM  CMCMCM 


Years 

Fig.   22. — Data  from   table  9    and   18.     Equations  for  lines   of  trend  of   dried 
peaches  are:  1906-1915,  2/ =  14.12  +  2.13a;;  1916-1925,  2/ =  32.08  —  1.25rr. 


The  five-year  average,  1920-1924,  exports  of  dried  peaclies  was 
3306  tons  or  13.1  per  cent  of  tlie  total  production.  Tlie  percentage 
exported  varied  from  year  to  year,  which  indicates  that  the  amount 
of  peaches  exported  depends  largely  upon  the  conditions  in  the  foreign 
markets  rather  than  upon  the  size  of  our  production. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


29 


Percentage  of  United  States'  Dried  Peaches  Exported,  1906-1924 


Years 

Fig.   23. — Data  from  tables  9   and   18.     Equation  for  line  of  trend  is 
y  ■=  13.944  +  A15x  —■  .058x',  origin  1915. 

Main  Foreign  Markets  for  Dried  Peaches. — As  shown  in  figure  24, 
Germany  was  the  most  important  market  for  our  dried  peaches  in 
1924,  taking  43.2  per  cent  of  our  total  exports.    The  United  Kingdom 

Eelative  Importance  of  our  Foreign  Dried  Peach  Markets,  1924 

Tons 
Germany  2,712 

United  Kingdom       1,079 

Canada 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

France 


Other  countries 
Total 


513     8.2 
6,276   100.0 


Fig.  24.— Data  from  table  4. 


was  next  in  importance,  followed  by  Canada,  Netherlands,  Sweden, 
and  France.  These  six  countries  purchased  91.8  per  cent  of  our  total 
exports  in  that  year. 

The  amount  of  dried  peaches  that  each  country  imports  from  the 
United  States  varies  from  year  to  year  as  indicated  in  table  4.  Our 
exports  to  Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom  have  increased  steadily 
during  these  three  years.  Germany  and  Netherlands  show  an  espe- 
cially large  increase  in  1924  over  the  two  preceding  years.  Canada, 
Sweden,  and  other  countries  have  imported  approximately  the  same 


30 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


amount  during  the  three  years.     Our  exports  to  France  in  1923  and 
1924  were  decidedly  less  than  in  1922. 

Table  4. — Exports  of  Dried  Peaches  from  the  United  States  by  Importing 

Countries,   1922-1924 
(Number  of  Tons) 


Country 


Germany 

United  Kingdom. 

Canada 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

France 

Other  countries... 


1922 

1923 

1924 

183 

305 

2,712 

222 

574 

1,079 

1,062 

803 

922 

105 

45 

723 

301 

247 

275 

541 

40 

52 

468 

314 

513 

Total 

Data  from  Table  10. 


2,328 


,276 


Per  Capita  Consumption  of  Dried  Peaches. — In  equivalent  of  the 
fresh  product,  the  trend  of  per  capita  consumption  of  dried  peaches 
in  the  United  States  increased  from  1.6  pounds  in  1906  to  3  pounds 
in  1915,  and  then  declined  to  1.8  pounds  in  1924  (see  fig.  25). 

Per  Capita  Consumption  of  Dried  Peaches,  United  States,  1906-1924 
(Equivalent  Fresh  Pounds) 

WCV|«0  t-(0<0<0  OOir^OO  <OOi  OOOJOO  tOOCM 

.»••••••  ••••  ••••••  •»• 

4.0 
3.5 
3.0 
2.5 
2.0 
1.5 
1.0 


/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

■<Se^ 

afar 

■  tr 

snd 

/ 

V 

^ 

^^ 

r 

"y 

[^ 

>^ 

7 

y" 

z 

> 

^ 

/ 

/ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

K^ 

Pe 

r  o 

7ph 

'a   c 

'orn. 

um^ 

yfio 

n^ 

\ 

f 

^ 

/ 

%  5 

a 

■>        C 

I    I 

>  I 

\    7 

\      % 

^      ^ 

■*            r 

1*      If 

■\             r- 

a 

3            t 
-t            r 

c 

-1             r 

%       % 

c 

> 

4              O 
I             Cv 

i  « 

Fig.   25. — Exports  subtracted   from  production,   and   the   result   divided  by 
the  United  States'  population.    Equation  for  line  of  trend  is 
2/ =  3.0033  +  .0112ic  —  .0166a;-,    origin    1915. 

Purchasing  Power  of  Dried  Peaches. — The  trend  of  purchasing 
power  of  dried  peaches,  f.o.b.  growers'  shipping  points,  shows  a  steady 
decline  during  the  20-year  period  (see  fig.  26).  In  1925  the  line  of 
trend  was  14  per  cent  lower  than  in  1911. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND  PRICES:    PEACHES 


31 


Eelative  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Dried  Peaches,  F.O.B.  Growers' 
Shipping  Points,  1906-1925 


•,is< 

rW-iQO 

O 

to 

ir> 

c- 

1i« 

^rt  o> 

o 

CO 

to 

iJ^"-* 

CM 

f-H 

^ 


240 


200 


160 


120 


60 


40 


^ 

\ 

A 

J 

\ 

4 

^s 

?cuK 

ir  " 

/ 

\ 

> 

=^ 

I— 

N 

■ 

^A 

^ 

-- 

^ 

CM         CO        «il<        in 


O  r^  <M  W  ^  «> 

W  CM  M  M  «M  gJ 


Years 


Fig.  26. — Data  from  table  26.     Equation  for  line  of  trend  is  2/  ^  108.1  —  1.09a:. 

The  relation  between  production  and  purchasing  power  of  dried 
peaches  is  shown  in  figure  27.  A  high  production  is  generally,  though 
not  always,  accompanied  by  a  low  price  and  vice  versa. 

Cyclical  Fluctuations  in  the  Production  and  Eelative  Purchasing  Power 
OF  California  Dried  Peaches,  1906-1925 


+  3 
+  2 

.            ^ 

^Pu 

-Chi 

7Sfn 

7    P 

ywe 

r- 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\. 

/ 

/ 

\ 

+  1 

V 

\ 

y 

/ 

s 

\ 

/ 

V 

/ 

\; 



s 



V 

-  1 

-  2 

-  3 

/ 

> 

\ 

A 

^-^ 

V 

> 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

^ 

A 

t 

> 

s 

/ 

\ 

\ 

A^^ 

Pro 

due 

Hof 

r 

5      c 

I      \ 

^   \ 

-1             r 

:J     I 

%      \ 

3    ;s 

0 

1- 

> 

t 

H           r 

0           0 
-1           r 

i>         c 

5          •- 

■1 

1         cv 

1           c\ 

1"       in 

'     3 

Years 


Fig.  27. — Data  corrected  for  secular  trend. 


Figure  28  shows  the  close  relationship  between  the  prices  of  can- 
ning Freestone  and  dried  peaches.  The  general  tendency  is  for  a 
change  in  the  price  of  one  to  be  accompanied  by  a  similar  change  in 
the  price  of  the  other.  This  is  because  some  varieties  of  Freestone 
peaches,  particularly  the  Lovell,  may  be  either  canned  or  dried. 


32 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 


Cyclical  Fluctuations   in   the   Eelative   Purchasing  Power   of   California 
Dried  and  Canning  Freestone  Peaches,  1906-1925 


♦3 

+1 
0 

^ 

\ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

V 

k 

Orn-d- 

T 

\- 

^ 

/\ 

f 

\ 

y 

\ 

^ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

y 

\ 

^ 

^_ 

f 

\ 

^ 

^ 

/ 

f 

M::r 

-1 
-2 

-3 

-^. 

1 

-^/r-fi'€'i/-0^e 

g 

I 

0 

>        c 

D         a 
3           C 

-> 

H                 ; 

H             r 

j; 

1     I 

1          u 

■<i-i,HrHi-<<MCM(MCJCMC\J 

Years 


Fig.  28. — Data  corrected  for  secular  trend. 

FEESH  PEACHES 

Varieties  of  Shipping  Peaches  in  California. — There  are  approxi- 
matelp  28  varieties  of  peaches  produced  in  California,  which  may  be 
shipped  fresh.  The  Elberta  is  easily  the  most  important  of  the  ship- 
ping varieties,  making  up  perhaps  80  per  cent  of  the  total.  Other 
varieties  in  order  of  their  importance  are  Lovell,  Salway,  St.  John, 
Triumph,  Crawford,  Levi,  Phillip,  and  Tuscan.* 

Peaches,  Main  California  Shipping  Varieties  and  Time  of  Eipening 


Variety 


Time  of 
ripening 


June  July  •  Aug. 

03airooo>o>o~Jwo      -J 


Sept. 

N>        03  »-•        to        to 

»«>•        •-•        -5        t^-        l->        <D 


Triumph,  Semi-cling     June  12-June  30 


St,  John  Free 
Crawford  Free 
Tuscan  Cling 
Elberta  Free 
Lovell  Free 
Salway  Free 
Phillip  Cling 
Levi  Cling 


June  28-July  15 
July  10-Aug.  13 
July  15-July  27 
July  21-Aug.  6 
Aug.  1-Aug.  20 
Aug.  2  5-Sept.l5 
Aug.  26-Sept.l5 
Sept.  2-Sept.25 


Fig.  29. — Data  from  the  California  Fruit  Exchange. 


*  Interview,  F.  A.  Harlow,  Jr.,  California  Fruit  Exchange,  Feb.  15,  1926. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


33 


Of  the  nine  varieties  listed  above,  Triumph  ripens  earliest,  as 
indicated  in  figure  29.  The  Elberta  has  a  short  ripening  period,  from 
July  21  to  August  6.  Considering  all  varieties  of  peaches  the  ripening 
period  normally  extends  from  June  1  to  September  25. 

Shipping  Districts  for  Fresh  Peaches  in  California. — The  principal 
districts  in  California  from  which  fresh  peaches  are  shipped  are  the 
upper  San  Joaquin  Valley  in  the  section  surrounding  Atwater,  Living- 
ston, and  Denair;  Placer  County;  sections  in  Fresno  and  Tulare 
counties;  and  the  Suisun  district  in  Solano  county. 

Production  of  Fresh  Peaches,  United  States  and  Californiu. — The 
trend  of  total  fresh  peach  production  in  the  United  States  has 
increased  but  slowly  as  shown  in  figure  30,  the  increase  from  1906  to 
1925  being  only  3.2  per  cent.     This  increase  is  considerably  less  than 

Production  of  Fresh  Peaches,  United  States  and  California,  and 
United  States  Population,  1906-1925 
Peaches:  w 


Years 

Fig.  30. — Data  from  tables  19  and  20.     Equations  for  lines  of  trend  are: 
United  States,  2/ =  804.37  +  1.34it:;   California,  i/:=  17.177  +  1.067a;. 

that  of  the  United  States  population — the  population  having  increased 
13.3  per  cent.  During  the  same  period,  the  trend  of  California's  inter- 
state fresh  peach  shipments  increased  from  17,177  tons  to  37,450  tons, 
^n  increase  of  118  per  cent. 


34 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Fresh  Peach  Exports. — The  tonnage  of  fresh  peaches  exported 
from  the  United  States  is  small,  amounting  to  less  than  1  per  cent 
of  the  total  fresh  peach  production,  or  approximately  2  per  cent  of 
the  total  fresh  peach  carlot  shipments  (see  table  5). 

Table  5. — Fresh  Peaches,  United  States,  Exports,  Production,  and  Shipments, 

1922-1924 


Exports 

Total  United  States 

Per  cent  exported  of — 

Year 

Production 

Shipments 

Production 

Shipments 

I 

II 

III 

1922-23 

6,585 
7,533 
8,086 

969,089 

767,217 

1,012,338 

378,972 
323,868 
407,628 

.68 
.98 
.80 

1  74 

1923-24 

2  33 

1924-25 

1  98 

Sources  of  data : 

Column  I.    See  Table  9. 
Column  II.    See  Table  19. 

Column  III.    See  Table  24.    The  figure  12  is  used  in  converting  number  of  cars  to  number  of 
tons,  as  there  are  approximately  12  tons  of  peaches  to  a  car. 

Per  Capita  Production  of  Fresh  Peaches. — Figure  31  shows  that 
the  trend  of  per  capita  production  of  fresh  peaches  has  been  steadily 
downward,  declining  from  18.4  pounds  in  1906  to  14.5  pounds  in  1925, 
a  decrease  of  21.6  per  cent. 


Per  Capita  Production  of  Fresh  Peaches,  United  States,  1906-1925 


i-l  W  lO  to  lO 

Pounds 
30 


20 


15 


cy> 

« 

in 

o 

■# 

N 

(O 

o 

in 

ot 

)         o 

r- 

•<t 

CT>         r-         to         ca        to 

, 

V 

/ 

V 

p 

•  Ca 

o/i-c 

HSHC 

»/7 

r 

/ 

\ 

^ 

/ 

\ 

J 

J: 

\ 

fi 

ir  i 

-4 

-enc 

J 

\ 

/ 

\ 

T 

7 

^ 

1 

j 

f— 

r 

\ 

1 

\ 

/ 

^ 

r^ 

-N 

o         •-•        <^ 


O  r-*  est 


c\J  W  C\J 


rig.  31. — Data  from  table  19.    Production  figures  divided  by  population  for 
corresponding  years.     Equation  for  line  of  trend  is  2/^=18.44  —  .21a;. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


35 


California's  Interstate  Fresh  Peach  Shipments. — As  shown  in 
figure  30  the  interstate  shipments  of  fresh  peaches  from  California 
have  increased  118  per  cent  since  1906.  The  trend  of  interstate  ship- 
ments is  characterized  by  a  uniform  amount  of  increase,  rather  than 
by  a  uniform  rate  of  increase.  During  this  20-year  period,  there  has 
been  a  normal  increase  of  1067  tons  per  year. 

The  yearly  shipments  are  sometimes  above  and  sometimes  below 
the  secular  trend.  Although  these  fluctuations  are  caused  in  part  by 
the  fluctuations  in  the  total  peach  production  in  California,  a  more 
important  cause  is  the  fluctuations  in  peach  production  in  all  states 
other  than  California.  Whenever  the  peach  production  in  other  states 
is  above  normal,  there  is  a  tendency  for  California's  interstate  ship- 
ments to  fall  below  normal ;  and  conversely,  whenever  the  production 
is  below  normal  in  the  other  states,  California's  shipments  are  above 
normal.    Tliis  condition  is  illustrated  in  figure  32. 

Cyclical  Fluctuations,  Fresh  Peach  Production,  1906-1924 


+3 
+2 
+1 
0 
-1 
-2 
-3 

'Frt 

'sh 

oea 

7h     / 

^rac 

'uc-t 

<on 

-  Al 

/ 

Stt 

7-f-es 

o/ 

'yer 

i-ho 

n  C 

7//fc 

'rnic 

} 

/ 

--. 

/ 

V 

i 

\ 

/ 

V 

"v^ 

J 

\\ 

y 

^"; 

< 

•• 

<     y 

y 

V 

\ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

A, 

A 

/ 

"^ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

n 

/ 

\ 

t 

Col 

ifor 

nia 

Tnt. 

?rsi 

"■ai-f. 

5h 

f'pmt 

yn-i-5 

f 

> 

\ 

\ 

f 

""^ 

Years 


Fig.  32. — Data  corrected  for  secular  trend. 


Seasonal  Variation  in  California's  Interstate  Shipments. — As  indi- 
cated in  figure  33,  the  fresh  peach  shipments  from  California  normally 
begin  the  first  week  in  June  and  continue  for  approximately  20  weeks, 
until  the  third  week  in  October.  The  bulk  of  the  peaches,  however,  are 
shipped  during  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  weeks,  which  are  usually 
the  last  week  in  July  and  the  first  two  weeks  in  August.  The  ship- 
ments during  this  period  are  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  Elberta 
variety.  Consequently  it  is  with  the  Elberta  that  the  growers  of 
peaches  for  fresh  shipments  are  most  interested. 


36 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[Cmc.  1 


Seasonal  Variation  in  California  Interstate  Fresh  Peach   Shipments 


o 

700 


Or-IOiCMinrH 
r-ICOlO     COr-llAlOr^     O>t-(MO 
r-*t~     lO^in      to    \Si     r-t     ■^    KO     \0    (M    r^    (O 


600 

500 

400 
300 
200 

100 
0 


i-«oj   tO'^m    top-oooo   i-i«Mto\i<   loujt-   coa>o 


Weeks  in  Shipping  Season 
Jvine      July    August    Sept. 


October 


Fig.  33. — Data  from  California  Fruit  News.     Seasonal  variation  computed 
for  years  1917-1925.     Data  for  years  1921-1925  given  in  table  22. 

Relative  Importance  of  the  Principal  Fresh  Peach  Producing 
States. — Fourteen  states  ship  approximately  92  per  cent  of  the  total 
United  States  fresh  peaches,  as  shown  in  figure  34.     Georgia,  alone, 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Fresh  Peaches  by  States 
(Average  1920-1924) 


Cars 

Itlt 

Georgia 

9,178 

33,0 

New  York 

4,135 

14.9 

California 

2,862 

10.3 

Colorado 

1,354 

4.9 

New  Jersey 

1,175 

4.2 

Arkansas 

1,147 

4.1 

Michigan 

1,075 

3.9 

Ubah 

949 

3.4 

Washington 

877 

3.2 

North  Csirolina 

859 

3.1 

Illinois 

705 

2.5 

Ohio 

474 

1.7 

Texas 

399 

1.4 

Tennessee 

285 

1.0 

All  others 

2,319 

8.4 

Fig.  34.— Data  from  table  23. 


shipped  33  per  cent  of  the  total,  and  New  York  shipped  14.9  per  cent. 
California  is  third  in  imi)ortance  as  a  fresh  peach  shipping  state, 
although  its  shipments  were  only  10.3  per  cent  of  the  total. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


37 


During  the  particular  period  in  which  the  bulk  of  her  crop  is 
marketed,  however,  California  is  a  more  important  factor  in  the  fresh 
peach  market,  as  shown  in  figure  35.  California's  interstate  shipments 
averaged  approximately  19  per  cent  of  all  fresh  peaches  shipped 
during  August  for  the  five-year  period,  1921-1925. 


Percentage  of  Monthly  Shipments  op  United  States'  Fkesh  Peaches 

Shipped  by  California  During  California's  Shipping 

Season,  1921-1925 

—^  O       <0       00      00  lO 

Fer.     •      •      • 
cent  <^    ;:^    o 


C        r-4         bP       cues 

^     -i     <      co>* 


Fig.  35. — Data  from  table  24.     The  solid  black  bars  represent  the  percentages 
of  the  total  yearly  carlot  shipments  shipped  by  California. 

Figure  36  shows  the  main  fresh  peach  producing  states  arranged 
according  to  the  time  of  shipment.  The  vertical  scale  shows  the  num- 
ber of  cars  shipped  by  each  state,  and  the  horizontal  scale  shows  the 
length  of  the  shipping  period.  Although  the  time  at  which  each  state 
ships  will  vary  to  some  extent  from  year  to  year,  there  is  a  strong 
tendency  for  the  states  to  maintain  their  relative  positions. 

The  data  presented  in  this  chart  show  clearly  that  California's 
fresh  peaches  are  subjected  to  considerable  competition  from  other 
areas.  During  the  first  week  in  August,  1925,  the  three  states, 
Georgia,  Arkansas,  and  North  Carolina  each  shipped  approximately 
the  same  number  of  cars  as  California.  The  individual  shipments 
from  other  states  were  not  heavy  during  this  period,  but  the  aggregate 
amounted  to  a  considerable  volume. 


38 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


H       ^= 


b£ 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


39 


California's  Fresh  Peaches  are  Widely  Distributed. — California's 
fresh  peaches  are  distributed  among  a  larger  number  of  markets  than 
are  other  deciduous  tree  fruits.*  Many  markets  having  a  population 
of  only  5000  take  one  or  more  full  carloads  of  peaches,  although  it  is 
impossible  to  sell  a  carload  of  cherries,  plums,  or  pears  in  them.  The 
wide  distribution  of  California's  fresh  peaches  is  also  illustrated  by 
the  fact  that  only  1189  cars  or  40.5  per  cent  of  the  2934  cars  of  peaches 
shipped  from  California  during  the  four  months  of  June,  July, 
August,  and  September,  1925,  were  unloaded  in  the  31  cities  outside 
of  California,  in  which  unloads  were  reported  to  the  Bureau  of 
Agricultural   Economics. 

Principal  Markets  for  California  Fresh  Peaches. — The  larger  pro- 
portion of  California  fresh  peaches  are  marketed  in  the  area  west  of 
Chicago  and  north  of  Omaha.  In  this  area  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  reports  unloads  in  only  the  nine  markets  given  in  figure  37. 

Nine  Important  Markets  for  California  Fresh  Peaches,  1925 


Fig.  37.— Data  from  table  6. 

Of  the  1189  cars  that  California  unloaded  in  the  31  markets  in  1925, 
909  or  76.5  per  cent  were  unloaded  in  these  nine  markets.  These 
figures  corroborate  the  experience  of  the  California  Fruit  Exchange, 
which  states  that  the  bulk  of  its  Freestone  peaches  are  marketed  in 
this  area.* 


*  Interview,    F.    A.    Harlow,    Jr.,    California    Fruit    Exchange,    Sacramento, 
Feb.  15,  1926. 


40 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


States  Which  Compete  Directly  With  California. — What  states 
ship  peaches  to  the  same  market  at  the  same  time  as  California?  Table 
6  gives  the  answer  to  this  question  in  detail  for  1925.  Since  California 
markets  the  major  portion  of  her  crop  in  August — in  1925,  71.2  per 
cent  of  the  California  peaches  unloaded  in  the  nine  markets  were 
unloaded  in  August — table  6  is  confined  to  that  month. 

Table  6. — Fresh  Peaches;   Carlot  Unloads  in  Nine  Cities  by  States  of  Origin 

During  August,  1925 


Ark. 

Calif. 

Colo. 

Ga. 

111. 

N.J. 

City 

Cars 

Per 
cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 
cent 

Chicago 

113 

4 

24 

14 

29 

16.9 
6.3 
16.9 
13.2 
32.6 

148 
19 
49 
83 
56 

164 
71 
37 
22 

22.1 
30.2 
34.5 
78.3 
62.9 
87.7 
79.8 
20.1 
21.0 

39 

34 

11 

4 

3 

5.8 
54.0 
7.8 
3.8 
3.4 

81 

12.1 

223 

33.4 

12 

1.8 

5 

3.5 

24 
2 

16.9 
1.9 

Portland 

St.  Paul 

8 

9.1 

6 

6.7 

2 

2.2 

Seattle 

Total 

192 

11.7 

649 

39.8 

97 

5.9 

86 

5.3 

251 

15.4 

12 

.7 

Tenn. 

Mich. 

Ind. 

Utah 

Wash. 

All  other 

City 

Cars 

Per 
cent 

Cars 

Per 
cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Cars 

Per 
cent 

Cars 

Per 

cent 

Total 

Chicago 

21 

3.1 

11 

1.6 

9 

1.3 

6 
1 

11 
3 
1 

19 

1 

147 

83 

.9 

1.6 

7.7 

2.8 

1.1 

10.2 

1.1 

79.9 

79.0 

7 

1.0 

670 

5 

7.9 

63 

2 

1.4 

2 

1.4 

9 

6.4 

5 

3.5 

142 

106 

89 

Portland 

4 

1 

2.1 
1.1 

187 

St.  Paul 

89 

Seattle 

184 

Spokane 

105 

Total 

23 

1.4 

13 

.8 

18 

1.1 

5 

.3 

272 

16.6 

17 

1.0 

1635 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  U.  S.  D.  A. 


In  August,  1925,  1635  carloads  of  peaches  were  unloaded  in  the 
nine  markets,  of  which  649  or  39.8  per  cent  were  from  California. 
More  than  10  other  states  unloaded  some  peaches  in  one  or  more  of 
these  nine  markets  during  that  month.  Washington  is  the  largest 
single  competitor  of  California  in  this  area,  followed  closely  by  Illinois 
and  Arkansas.  Washington's  competition,  however,  is  confined  chiefly 
to  the  cities  of  Portland,  Seattle,  and  Spokane,  while  Illinois  is  an 
important  competitor  in  Chicago  and  Milwaukee,  and  Arkansas'  com- 
petition is  most  keenly  felt  in  Chicago,  Omaha,  Milwaukee,  and 
Minneapolis. 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES  41 

In  this  area,  Portland  was  the  most  important  market  for  Cali- 
fornia peaches,  followed  by  Chicago,  Minneapolis,  St.  Paul,  Omaha, 
Milwaukee,  Seattle,  Spokane,  and  Denver.  California  was  the  most 
important  factor  in  the  cities  of  Portland,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis, 
Omaha,  and  Milwaukee.  In  Seattle  and  Spokane,  Washington  was  a 
more  important  factor  than  California.  Illinois  unloaded  more  car- 
loads of  peaches  in  Chicago,  and  Colorado  unloaded  more  carloads  in 
Denver  than  did  California. 

The  Market  for  Fresh  Peaches  is  Nation-wide. — Although  Cali- 
fornia has  her  own  particular  market,  to  which  she  is  more  accessible 
than  many  of  her  competitors,  and  in  which  she  sells  the  bulk  of  her 
crop,  these  markets  are  by  no  means  secure.  Other  sections  can  and  do 
send  peaches  to  these  markets  whenever  the  price  is  sufficiently  higher 
than  in  their  own  particular  markets  to  justify  the  additional  expense. 

The  development  of  railway  facilities,  such  as  refrigeration  and 
fast  freight,  has  made  it  possible  for  each  of  the  main  producing  areas 
to  reach  the  principal  markets  in  the  United  States.  Whenever,  there- 
fore, a  section  has  a  larger  crop  than  can  be  sold  in  its  own  particular 
markets,  it  sends  the  surplus  to  markets  which  another  section 
normally  considers  peculiarly  its  own.  Likewise,  when  a  section  has  a 
short  crop  its  marketing  area  is  narrowed,  and  the  more  distant 
markets  which  it  normally  supplies  are  then  supplied  from  other 
sections.  Those  states  which  market  their  peaches  during  the  same 
period  are,  therefore,  potential  competitors,  even  though  they  are 
separated  by  the  width  of  the  United  States.  Thus  in  1924,  when 
Georgia  had  a  relatively  large  crop  and  California  had  a  relatively 
small  crop,  Georgia  unloaded  over  three  times  as  many  carloads  of 
peaches  in  Chicago  during  August  as  did  California.  On  the  other 
hand  in  1925,  when  California's  crop  was  larger  and  Georgia's  crop 
smaller  than  in  1924,  California  unloaded  almost  twice  as  many 
peaches  in  Chicago  during  August  as  did  Georgia. 

Purchasing  Power  of  Elherta  Peaches. — The  secular  trend  of  the 
purchasing  power  of  Elberta  peaches  f.o.b.  growers'  shipping  points 
declined  26  per  cent  from  1911  to  1925  (see  fig.  38). 

Growers  received  less  for  their  peaches  in  1922  than  in  any  other 
year  during  the  20-year  period,  with  the  exception  of  1915.  Since  1922 
the  purchasing  power  has  increased  steadily  approaching  in  1925  the 
relatively  high  points  of  1916  and  1921. 


42 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Relative  Purchasing  Power  of  Elberta  Peaches,  F.O.B.  Growers'  Shipping 

Points,  1906-1925 


JSm    r^  N  iH  r-»  i-I  i-« 


CM        a»        M       N 


240 

9  Art 

y 

\ 

160 

/ 

\ 

120 
80 

\ 

V 

_> 



Seau/of  Tnrnd^ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

= 

- 

^ 

/ 

S 

y 

V 

/ 

-7* 

^ 

^ 

^^^ 

^ 

A. 

-i-. 

^*"^ 

40 
0 

/ 

N 

^^ 

^ 

^ 

■^ 

Fig.  38. — Data  from  table  27.     Equation  for  line  of  trend  is 
2/ =  82.75  —  1.55ic,  origin  1911. 

Close  Relation  Between  Peach  Prices  in  the  Various  Markets. — 
The  fact  that  the  main  markets  for  peaches  in  the  United  States  are 
reasonably  accessible  to  every  producing  area  is  responsible  for  the 
close  interrelation  of  prices  paid  for  peaches  in  each  of  the  markets. 
Marketing  organizations  watch  all  of  the  markets  carefully,  and  if, 
for  any  reason,  they  believe  that  a  higher  net  price  will  be  obtained  in 
one  market  than  in  another,  they  act  accordingly. 

It  is  true,  of  course,  that  prices  in  two  or  more  markets  do  not 
always  move  in  the  same  direction  or  to  the  same  extent,  but  there  is 
a  strong  tendency  toward  the  same  general  movement  as  is  seen  in 
figure  39. 

Purchasing  Power  of  California  Elberta  Peaches,  New  York  and  Chicago 
Auction  Markets,  1919-1925 


New  York    wSgcDwjjjjjjg 

Chicago     So- s  35  5  S  S3 

120 


Oe-^tO  0<010<T>4  C\J<010<T>  OtOrtCgtO'* 


in  <o  CM  lO  M  I 


O  >/C  Tg  O 


Ai?u   V3/-/(-^ 


*Sk:- 


^-?^ 


^s 

:5; 


''^\ 


■4^ 


^  ::; 


^ 


entlog 

-1  a> 

S 

S{R5 

>0  CM 

g'-ssss"  gj-"  J4  sjs 

CM     -H    00 

lO    rH     (O 

S 

li'^  ^^^ 

Month 

1 

1 

ft    ill 

II 

i 

u 

Year 

1919 

1920                        1921 

1922 

1923 

CO    m  CM  <n     •* 


1925 


Fig.  39, — Data  from  the  New  York  Daily  Fruit  Eeporter  and  the  Chicago 
Fruit  and  Vegetable  Reporter.  Prices  are  the  weighted  daily  average  prices 
for  all  grades. 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES  43 

There  are  numerous  reasons  why  markets  get  out  of  line  with  each 
other.  One  important  reason  is  the  lack  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of 
marketing  organizations.  When  a  car  of  peaches  leaves  California,  the 
shipper  does  not  know  what  the  conditions  in  a  particular  market  will 
be  upon  its  arrival.  He  can  postpone  the  selection  of  a  particular 
market  in  which  to  sell  until  the  car  reaches  a  diversion  point,  but  even 
then  he  can  not  be  sure  how  many  cars  from  other  sections  will  arrive 
in  each  of  his  available  markets  at  the  same  time  as  his  own.  Neither 
does  he  know  the  exact  demand  situation  in  each  of  the  markets ;  that 
is,  how  many  peaches  can  be  sold  at  certain  prices.  Competition  of 
other  fruits  and  vegetables,  and  weather  conditions,  all  uncertain 
factors,  must  be  taken  into  consideration.  Because  of  these  indeter- 
minate factors,  it  is  not  surprising  that  shippers  make  mistakes. 

Seasonal  Variatien  in  Prices  of  California  Elbert  a  Peaches . — 
Figure  39  indicates  that  there  is  no  particular  time  during  the  ship- 
ping season  when  California  growers  may  normally  expect  a  higher 
price  for  their  Elberta  peaches  in  New  York  and  Chicago  than  at  any 
other  time.  Some  years,  as  in  1921,  the  price  was  highest  at  the 
beginning  of  the  season,  but  in  other  years,  as  in  1923,  the  price 
advanced  during  the  season. 

The  price  paid  for  California  peaches  at  any  particular  time  is 
influenced  by  the  total  volume  of  peaches  offered  at  that  time.  Conse- 
quently, the  same  variety  of  peaches  of  equal  quality  will  sell  at 
approximately  the  same  price.  Thus,  California  growers  will  receive 
the  same  price  for  their  peaches  as  is  paid  for  peaches  from  other 
states,  assuming  of  course  that  they  are  of  the  same  variety  and 
quality. 

Figure  40  shows  the  prices  obtained  for  Eastern  peaches  at  New^ 
York  and  Chicago  for  the  year  1923-1925.  The  general  tendency  indi- 
cated in  this  chart  is  for  prices  to  fall  during  the  first  part  of  July, 
which  is  the  time  when  a  large  volume  of  peaches  are  being  shipped 
from  the  Southern  states  (see  fig.  36).  As  the  volume  of  shipments 
decreases,  the  tendency  is  for  prices  to  increase.  In  1925,  prices 
increased  considerable  during  August.  In  figure  36  it  will  be  noted 
that  the  total  shipments  were  decreasing  during  this  period.  For  the 
years  1923,  1924,  and  1925,  California  peaches  would  have  met  less 
competition,  and  higher  prices  would  have  been  obtained  in  New  York 
and  Chicago  if  they  had  been  marketed  later.  There  are  not  sufficient 
data  available,  however,  to  determine  if  this  condition  is  likely  to 
prevail  in  the  future. 


44 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[Cmc.  1 


Eastern  Peach  Prices,  by  Weeks,  New  York  and  Chicago,  1923-1925 

Kew  York     oiotoiocoocooioeocoio      ooocoio         cooooooooffltocotoinoajtoooj        ooi^iooio^cortinoointOioin  to  n>£> 

ChlCd^O      WOtOOCDCOOOOlOtOOO^OcOlOtOCOm  toOinaDQDlOa)in<DtOCOaDCO(DtOCOCO  lOtOintOlOinoOi^COtQiOiOOGD  lOCDCO 

4Jto«ootO^'Oocot^<i>>noc\Jcor-iHcoto  ,-t»AewGOcocMrHc*-io<-i<-i(Z)'^*^rHcoto         t^rHC\j^c>jNtninr-'i5r-(Cvjoj^co  e^  ^o^^ 


0  I  I  M  I  I  I 

Week     r-iooiocaCT.<otoo 
ending '^ '-"^  ^mw 


i  I  I  M  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  I  I  I 


I 

1924 


Fig.  40. — Data  from  Crops  and  Markets.    Prices  at  a  given  date  are  for  the 
most  important  variety  offered  at  that  particular  time. 

California  Fresh  Peaches  on  an  Eastern  Shipment  Basis. — Cali- 
fornia produces  a  larger  amount  of  fresh  peaches  than  is  consumed 
within  the  state,  and  is,  therefore,  on  an  Eastern  shipment  basis.  Dur- 
ing the  past  20  years,  the  interstate  fresh  peach  shipments  have 
increased  steadily,  despite  the  rapid  increase  in  the  state's  population. 

Being  on  an  Eastern  shipment  basis,  the  prices  paid  for  peaches 
consumed  in  California  will  normally  be  lower  than  the  Eastern  prices 
by  the  cost  of  transportation.  The  competition  of  sellers  within  the 
state  will  tend  to  lower  the  price  so  that  they  will  receive  approxi- 
mately, the  same  return  as  they  receive  for  peaches  sold  outside  the 
state. 

For  this  reason,  the  prices  received  by  California  growers  for  fresh 
peaches  are  determined  by  factors  over  which  they  have  little  control. 
The  important  factors  on  the  demand  side  are  (1)  the  level  of  pros- 
perity in  the  consuming  markets,  (2)  the  weather  conditions  at  the 
time  the  fruit  arrives,  and  (3)  the  competition  of  other  fruits  and 
vegetables.  On  the  supply  side  the  important  factor  is  the  total 
amount  of  peaches  offered  for  sale,  which  in  turn  depends  upon  the 
total  production  of  fresh  peaches  in  the  United  States. 


COST    OF   PRODUCING    CANNING   PEACHES,    STANISLAUS 
COUNTY,  CALIFORNIA,  1925 

By  a,  a.  JUNGEEMAN,  Farm  Advisor,  Stanislaus  County,  and 
L.  W.  FLUHARTY,  Farm  Management  Demonstrator 


Data  on  the  costs  of  producing  canning  peaches  in  Stanislaus 
County  were  collected  in  the  peach  growers  contest  which  is  conducted 
by  the  horticultural  department  of  the  Stanislaus  County  Farm 
Bureau.  The  contest  began  on  October  1,  1924,  and  continued  for  one 
year.  Complete  labor  and  cost  records  were  kept  by  each  contestant 
for  the  entire  period.* 

Total  Cost  of  Froducing  Canning  Peaches. — Table  7  indicates  that 
the  average  cost  of  producing  canning  peaches  in  the  16  full  bearing 
orchards  in  Stanislaus  County  during  1925  was  $318,77,  or  $27.25 
per  ton. 

Table  7. — Cost  of  Producing  Canning  Peaches   on   16  Full  Bearing  Orchards, 
Stanislaus  County,  California,  1925t 

Cost  per  Cost  per  Percentage 

Item  acre  ton  of  cost 

Labor 1159.00  $13.64  49.9 

Spray  material 4.70  .41  1.5 

Water  tax 5.69  .48  1.8 

County  taxes 6.80  .53  2.1 

Miscellaneous  expense 2.48  .21  .8 

General  expense  not  included  above 39.40  3.37  12.4 

Depreciation  and  interest  on  improvements  except  trees  1.00  .08  .3 

Depreciation  and  interest  on  equipment 18.20  1.55  5.6 

Depreciation  and  interest  on  orchard 40.00  3.43  12.6 

Risk  of  doing  business 41.50  3.55  13.0 


Total 318.77  27.25  100.0 

Labor  was  the  largest  single  item  of  expense  amounting  to  one-half 
of  the  total  cost.  The  next  highest  item  of  expense  was  risk  of  doing 
business,  followed  by  depreciation  and  interest  on  orchards,  and  gen- 
eral expense.  All  other  items,  including  spray  materials,  water,  county 
taxes,  miscellaneous  expenses,  depreciation  and  interest  on  improve- 
ments, and  depreciation  and  interest  on  equipment,  made  up  only 
12  per  cent  of  the  total  cost.  The  grower's  actual  cash  outlay  for  labor, 
together  with  operator's  labor,  spray  material,  water,  county  taxes, 
miscellaneous  expenses,  and  general  expenses  was  $218.07  per  acre,  or 
$18.64  per  ton.     These  items  made  up  68.5  per  cent  of  the  total  cost. 

*  In  all  considerations  of  this  study,  the  reader  must  keep  in  mind  that  an 
item  of  15  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  doing  business  is  included  to  cover 
risks.  This  item  was  included  at  the  suggestion  of  the  contestants  who  con- 
tended that  the  growers  who  had  full  bearing  orchards  would  lose  1%  crops 
in  every  10  years  from  frosts,  pests,  etc. 

t  Interest  on  investment  in  land  is  not  included  in  costs. 


46 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Depreciation  and  interest  on  improvements,  equipment,  and  orchards, 
tog-ether  with  risk  of  doing  business,  made  up  the  balance  of  the 
expense. 

Lahor  Costs  of  Cultural  Operations. — A  summary  of  the  average 
labor  costs  per  acre  of  cultural  operations  is  shown  in  table  8. 

Table  8. — Labor  Costs  per  Acre  for  Specific  Cultural  Operations,  16  Full 
Bearing  Orchards,  Stanislaus  County,  California,  1925 


Operation 


Pruning 

Brush  disposal 

Spraying 

Plowing 

Irrigation 

Cultivation 

Thinning 

Propping 

Picking 

Hauling  from  orchard. 

Hauling  to  cannery 

Cover  crop 


Labor  per  acre 


M 


53.7 

9.6 

14.7 

3.2 

10.7 

13.5 

77  3 

8.1 

116.0 

11.2 


3.6 


H 


4.2 

11.3 

8.1 

6.4 

5.9 

10.3 

16.6 

4.9 

21.1 

23.1 


5  2 


10 


Cost  per 
acre* 


$20.00 
4  85 
8.25 
3  40 
4.39 

18.55 

31.87 
3.12 

48.56 
4.02 

15.60 
2.30 


Per  cent  of 
labor  cost 


12.8 
2.2 
5  2 
1.3 
2.7 

11.5 

20  4 
13 

30.4 
10 

10  3 
1.1 


M  =  Man  hours.  H  =  Horse  hours.  T  =  Tractor  hours. 

*  The  total  of  items  in  this  column  is  greater  than  the  average  labor  cost  in  Table  7  because  certain 
operations  were  not  performed  on  the  total  acreage  in  the  contest. 

Canning  Peach  Yields,  16  Full  Bearing  Orchards,  Stanislaus  County, 
Tons  California,  1925 

25 

Legend :  — 

Av.  yield  per  acre  . 

Per  acre  yield  at  953.20  per  ton 

necessary  -to  pay  all  expenses. 

20 1_  Esfimot&d  a\/eroge  yi'efd  -for 

5tanf5/aus   County . 


15 


10 


Orchai'd  No. 

Yield  Per 
Acre 


Fig.  41. — Average  yield  per  acre,  11.7  tons, 
ton  necessary  to  pay  all  expenses,  10.3  tons. 
Stanislaus  County,  5.75  tons. 


Yield  per  acre  at  $33.20  per 
Estimated   average  yield   for 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


47 


Peach  growers  will  be  interested  in  table  8  because  it  shows  the 
average  cost  of  specific  cultural  operations  for  orchards  where  such 
operations  were  performed  during  the  year.  For  example,  the  average 
cost  of  plowing  was  $4.39  per  acre  on  the  acreage  where  this  operation 
was  performed. 

Pruning,  cultivation,  thinning,  picking,  and  hauling  to  the  cannerj^ 
amounted  to  85.2  per  cent  of  the  total  labor  costs.  The  thinning  and 
picking  operations  alone  made  up  50.6  per  cent  of  the  total. 

Yields. — There  was  a  considerable  variation  in  the  peach  yields 
obtained  in  the  different  orchards,  ranging  from  a  low  of  4.4  tons  per 
acre  to  a  high  of  24  tons  per  acre  (see  fig.  41). 

The  average  yield  on  the  16  orchards  was  11.7  tons  per  acre.  One- 
half  of  the  growers  produced  less  than  this  average,  while  the  other 
half  produced  more  than  the  average.  Fourteen  of  the  16  growers 
obtained  a  yield  higher  than  the  average  for  the  county  which  was 
estimated  at  5.75  tons  per  acre. 


Cost  of  Producing  a  Ton  of  Canning  Peaches,  16  Full  Bearing  Orchards, 


Stanislaus  County,  California,  1925 


Dollars 

pet*  ton 

40 


Legend 


Setting  pn'ce  per  ton 
Totot  cost  per  ton 
Labor  and  costi  expense 
per  ton 


©  o 

p.  o 

4JO  U7 

W+>  1-4 


Fig.  42. — Average  selling  price  per  ton,  $33.20.     Average  total  cost  per  ton, 
$27.25.    Average  labor  and  cash  expense  per  ton,  $18.74. 


48 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


If  canning  peaches  were  sold  at  $33.20  per  ton,  it  would  require  a 
yield  of  10.3  tons  per  acre  to  pay  the  average  total  cost  of  production. 
To  pay  the  average  cash  expenses  alone,  a  yield  of  6.6  tons  per  acre 
would  be  required. 

Cost  Per  Ton. — The  cost  of  producing  a  ton  of  canning  peaches  on 
the  16  orchards  in  Stanislaus  County  in  1925  ranged  from  $15  to  $41 
(see  fig.  42).  The  average  cost  was  $27.25  per  ton.  The  average  price 
received  for  canning  peaches  in  1925  by  the  16  growers  was  $33.20 
per  ton.  At  this  price  nine  of  these  growers  made  a  profit,  while 
seven  of  them  operated  at  a  loss.  Only  two  of  the  sixteen  growers 
produced  peaches  for  less  than  the  average  labor  and  cash  expenses, 
which  amounted  to  $18.74  per  ton. 

Influence  of  Yield  on  Cost  of  Production. — The  general  tendency 
apparent  in  figure  43  is  for  a  high  yield  to  be  accompanied  by  a  low 
cost  and  for  a  low  yield  to  be  accompanied  by  a  high  cost.  Although 
there  are  exceptions  to  this  tendency,  it  is  quite  evident  that  the 
possibilities  of  raising  peaches  at  a  low  cost  are  greater  when  the  yield 
is  high  than  when  it  is  low. 


Relation  of  Yield  per  Acre  to  Cost  of  Production,  16  Full  Bearing  Orchards, 
Stanislaus  County,  California,  1925 


40 


30 


20 


10 


_  _  _LLLlL 

Mil 

Orchard  No,  16 


12  15 
o   o 


Cost  per 
ton 

Yield   „ 
per  Acre  § 


14 


13 

o 

o 

CO 


10  5 

Q        Q 


o   o 


Fig.  43. — The  solid  black  bars  represent  yield  per  acre,  and  the  outline  bars 
represent  the  cost  per  ton. 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES  49 


APPENDIX 

FOREIGN  PEACH  STATISTICS 

At  the  present  time  it  is  impossible  to  present  detailed  information 
on  the  foreign  peach  situation,  because  the  available  data  are  so 
fragmentary.  Peaches  are  a  relatively  unimportant  crop  in  many 
countries,  and  consequently  peach  statistics  are  not  separately 
reported. 

The  information  which  is  presented  here  was  obtained  from  the 
Department  of  Commerce  by  Mr.  Leonard  B.  Gary,  District  Manager 
of  the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce  of  the  United  States 
Department  of  Commerce  at  San  Francisco. 

Table  9. — Exports  of  Peaches  from  the  United  States,  1907  to  1925  (Year 

Ending  June  30) 

Year  Dried  (pounds)            Canned  (pounds)            Fresh  (pounds) 

1907 1,757,650 

1908 1,148,598 

1909 '  ^   2,403,430 

1910 '          2,617,069 

1911 y  1 1  7,125,014 

1912 4,425,803 

1913 ; '      6,529,633 

1914 6,712,296 

1915 14,464,655 

1916 13,739,342 

1917 8,187,588 

1918 5,862,605 

1919 4,834,738 

1920 12,755,907 

1921 3,573,175 

1922 6,259,781 

1923 5,585,621                        54,623,983                        13,170,000 

1924 12,974,647                       50,374,387                        15,065,000 

1925 4,668,434                       57,390,043                        16,172,000 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 
Data  on  the  amount  of  canned  and  fresh  peach  exports  are  not  available  for  the  earlier  years. 

Table  10. — Exports  of  Peaches  from  the  United  States  by  Importing  Countries, 
1922-1924    (Calendar  Years) 

FRESH  PEACHES 

Exported  to:  1922  (pounds)  1923  (pounds)  1924  (pounds) 

United  Kingdom* 28,835  140,470  295,325 

Canada 12,237,728  13,999,008  14,945,709 

Mexico 389,560  576,185  268,035 

Cuba 266,046  271,482  432,508 

Other  countries 55,572  61,953  132,770 

Total 12,977,741  15,049,098  16,074.347 

DRIED  PEACHES 

United  Kingdom* 443,668  1,147,868  2,157,079 

Germany 366,288  609,347  5,424,024 

France 1,081,575  79,061  103,723 

Netherlands 209,034  89,337  1,446,970 

Sweden 603,972  494,356  549,002 

Canada 2,123,426  1,606,149  1,843,428 

Other  countries 935,960  629,734  1,027,641 

Total 5,763,923  4,655,852  12,551,867 


50  CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  1 

Table  10. —  (Continued) 

CANNED  PEACHES 

Exported  to:  1922  (pounds)                1923  (pounds)               1924  (pounds) 

United  Kingdom* 49,759,201  29,462,281  52,622,141 

Germany 105,803  139,102  1,011,818 

France 1,523,831  600,190  854,308 

Netherlands 336,768  286,539  828,674 

Belgium 183,057  155,549  848,236 

Sweden 216,010  249,779  440,829 

Norway 302,284  181,405  62,8^2 

Denmark 271,806  356,976  298,371 

Canada 1,947,912  2,354,245  2,770,080 

Cuba 792,072  3,187,924  3,328,302 

British  India 262,909  361,142  233,955 

.Japan 214,820  282,722  235,706 

New  Zealand 702,956  508,422  412,490 

Other  countries 1,328,322  2,118,315  2,903,564 

Total 57,947,751  40,244,591  66,851,366 

*  Includes  Ireland. 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 

A  letter  from  Mr.  L.  A.  Wheeler,  Foodstuffs  Division,  Department 
of  Commerce,  under  date  of  November  24,  1925,  gives  the  following 
information:  '^The  countries  of  Australia  and  the  Union  of  South 
Africa,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  are  the  only  ones  besides 
the  United  States  to  produce  peaches  on  any  considerable  scale." 

The  available  acreage  and  production  data  in  Australia  are  shown 
in  table  11. 

Table  11. — AustraUa — Production  and  Acreage  of  Peaches 

Bearing  trees  Non-bearing  trees  Production 

Year  (acres)  (acres)  (bushels) 

1919-20 28,895  8,599  2,695,912 

1920-21 24,100  5,994  1,848,323 

1921-22 24,089  5,693  1,951,450 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 

The  number  of  peach  trees  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa  in  1921 
was  5,446,440,  of  which  4,406,780  were  bearing  and  1,059,660  were 
non-bearing.  The  production  of  dried  peaches  in  1923  was  2,394,336 
pounds.    There  are  no  fignres  on  the  production  of  fresh  peaches. 

With  regard  to  export  competition  from  these  two  countries,  Mr. 
R.  S.  Hollingshead,  Assistant  Chief,  Foodstuffs  Division,  Department 
of  Commerce,  in  a  letter,  under  date  of  December  1,  1925,  says: 

"1  do  not  believe  there  is  much  argument  to  the  fact  that  competi- 
tion for  California  peaches  is  increasing  and  will  continue  to  do  so. 
This  is  due  to  the  growing  production  in  Australia  and  British  South 
Africa.  As  far  as  I  know  these  are  the  most  important  potential 
sources  of  large  supplies  of  peaches  which  may  go  into  world  trade. 
So  far,  the  Australian  industry  has  been  rather  unsuccessful,  but  there 
is  a  possibility  of  improvement  in  the  situation  as  more  business-like 
methods  of  operating  are  applied.    The  South  African  situation  is  in 


1926]  CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES  51 

process  of  development  through  the  activities  of  the  local  agricultural 
authorities.  I  believe  that  conditions  are  such  that  a  considerable 
production  in  that  territory  can  be  expected  as  time  goes  on. ' ' 

The  available  export  figures  from  the  Union  of  South  Africa  and 
Australia  by  importing  countries  are  given  in  tables  12  and  13. 

Table  12. — Exports  of  Fresh  Peaches  from  the  Union  of  South  Africa 
(Figures  in  Boxes) 

1920  1921  1922  1923  1924 

United  Kingdom 46,749  88,283  108,449  125,048  92,399 

Belgian  Congo 7  27  584  341  340 

Portuguese  East  Africa 1,012  1,428  2,461  4,206  3,074 

Southwest  Africa* 1,073  610  915  1,076  2,180 

United  States 492               

Other  countries 8  6  1,694  116  768 

Total 48,849  90,846  114,103  130,787  98,761 

*  Shipments  to  Southwest  Africa  not  considered  exports  after  1921. 

Dried  and  Canned  Peaches  not  listed  separately. 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 

Table  13, — Exports  of  Dried  Peaches  from  Australia 
(Pounds) 

1922-23  1923-24 

United  Kingdom 707,680  160,077 

New  Zealand 35,832  10,901 

Dutch  East  Indies 3,188  460 

Other  countries 7,699  3,859 

Total 754,399  175,297 

Fresh  and  canned  peaches  not  listed  separately. 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 

The  trade  statistics  of  those  countries  in  which  we  market  the  bulk 
of  our  peaches  do  not  list  the  import  of  peaches  separately,  with  the 
exception  of  Germany.  For  this  reason  it  is  impossible  to  obtain  data 
on  the  competition  of  foreign  countries  in  our  main  foreign  markets. 
Germany's  total  imports  of  fresh  peaches  are  shown  in  table  14. 

Table  14. — Germany  's  Imports  of  Fresh  Peaches 

Year  Pounds 

1920  29,321 

1921  30,864 

1922  162,259 

1923  24,471 

1924  8,392,912 

Data  from  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce. 


52 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Table   15.— Peaches— Number  of  Trees,  United  States,  by   States,   1909,   1919, 

and  1924 


New  Hampshire 

Massachusetts 

Rhode  Island 

Connecticut 

New  York 

New  Jersey 

Pennsylvania 

Delaware 

Maryland 

Virginia 

West  Virginia 

North  Carolina 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Iowa 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Oklahoma 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

New  Mexico 

Arizona 

Utah 

Nevada 

Idaho 

Washington 

Oregon 

California 

United  States. 


1S09 


Bearing 
and  non- 
bearing 
100  trees 


928 
3,167 

701 

8,003 

46,741 

25,801 
45,624 
13,895 
23,028 
23,661 

28,658 

35,228 

16,859 

121,405 

4,477 

52,257 
32,758 
35,995 
58,983 
13,740 

79,924 
14,523 
50,156 
33,561 
43,544 

40,162 
24,512 
12,195 
126,966 
73,585 

97,449 
13,994 
3,207 
840 
11,955 

113 

2,860 

15,650 

7,814 

122,386 


1,367,729 


Bearing 
trees 


57,571 

154,592 

39,342 

461,711 

2,457,187 

1,216,476 
2,383,027 
1,177,402 
1,497,724 
1,585,505 

1,424,582 

2,661,791 

1,336,142 

10,609,119 

290,850 

3,133,368 
2,130,298 
2,860,120 
2,907,170 
1,010,749 

6,588,034 
1,188,373 
4,394,894 
2,245,402 
3,163,737 

3,177,331 
1,726,298 
903,352 
9,737,827 
4,783,825 

6,859,962 

793,372 

136,191 

51,415 

544,314 

6,329 

73,080 

536,875 

273,162 

7,829,011 


,506,657 


Non- 
bearing 
trees 


35,213 
162,114 

30,795 

338,608 

2,216,907 

1,363,632 

2,179,386 

212,117 

805,063 

780,551 

1,441,188 
861,042 
349,790 

1,531,367 
156,782 

2,092,300 
1,145,479 

739,358 
2,991,010 

283,308 

1,404,429 

263,882 

620,709 

1,110,744 

1,190,727 

838,866 

724,895 

316,132 

2,958,813 

2,574,680 

2,884,927 

606,001 

184,466 

32,562 

651,233 

5,049 
212,995 

1,028,141 
508,179 

4,409,562 


42,266,243 


1919 


Bearing 
and  non- 
bearing 
100  trees 


1,045 

4,817 

865 

6,294 

36,969 

28,207 
47,984 
5,578 
12,826 
23,620 

27,016 

30,708 

12,076 

120,470 

3,231 

38,944 
14,280 
18,510 
27,748 
1,909 

30,752 
1,357 
11,234 
23,615 
30,401 

20,907 
13,489 
6,401 
61,025 
35,177 

43,314 
4,791 
1,919 
1,286 
5,828 

96 

2,050 

6,994 

4,428 

104,247 


872,640 


Bearing 
trees 


81,287 
346,260 

61,125 

495,750 

3,038,023 

1,936,632 

3,563,726 

464,514 

997,086 

1,578,253 

2,049,862 
1,976,756 

871,976 
8,655,051 

206,155 

2,924,177 

860,024 

1,011,325 

2,010,022 

129,939 

2,358,925 

95,629 

844,498 

1,671,044 

2,349,656 

1,544,700 

855,158 

408,178 

4,461,717 

2,879,945 

3,342,387 
446,943 
154,968 
101,855 
554,202 

5,940 

178,434 

649,085 

412,936 

9,057,760 


65,646,101 


Non- 
bearing 
trees 


23,200 
135,426 

25,366 
133,577 
658,868 

884,067 

1,234,708 

93,336 

285,486 

783,733 

651,742 
1,093,993 

335,599 
3,391,851 

116,913 

970,183 
568,046 
839,712 
764,838 
61,043 

716,325 
40,118 
278,914 
690,483 
690,359 

546,024 
493,651 
231,909 
1,640,848 
637,762 

988,966 
32,158 
36,923 
26,681 
28,551 

3,721 

26,648 

50,254 

29,911 

1,366,941 


21,617,862 


1924 


Bearing 
and  non- 
bearing 
trees 


312,978 


438,493 
3,419,685 

2,385,318 
3,820.839 
501,111 
1,152,843 
2,225,742 

1,817,729 

3,615,127 

1,432,144 

14,639,437 

290,590 

3,841,973 
2,129,168 
4,365,302 


2,806,821 


2,071,372 
4,177,036 

1,964,956 
1,110,159 
414,380 
3,817,492 
2,351,767 

4,427,156 

395,389 

133,953 

92,515 

634,403 


678,910 
14,461, 206 


Sources  of  data:    Years  1909  and  1919— 14th  Census  of  the  United  States,  1920,  Vol.  V,  p.  864.     Year 
1924.     1925  Farm  Census.    Preliminary  state  summaries. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


■^  oi  CO           t-^            cc  o  ►^  >^  h^  o*  fr^  hP^  "^  h^  >— *  »^ 
Cn^OOOtOCnlOOOsOOO 


_    _      _     _  Ol  00  -)  to 

>t^OC0-J«;Otnc0^l00K-C0H-O5C0> 
OOOOtOOOO>OiOOJcOOOCntfi.OiOOCnOOOiOls3i-'( 


k-OJ  to  COCOO5tO>-'i*».00CO^J00         ^ltOlOCOK-^lH-K-^03h(^tOtO>^tOO»*i-OitO 

otsoooi— 'oe;iooc3*.tno^oa5i*>.02^ioic>JOHP>-ioi— '>f^Oito4i->f»-c»iooH-;r   "  

~~  _---     -     -     _____       ,(35OO00O^J0i02Cn' 


ooo^o>wci03*>.oooooi 


lOOOt0^02003;OtO^J 


ts2  to  ^  to 


oo  to  Ol  to  o 


CO  OOiH-1— '0503-<IOOtOC3tO<:ri         ^I         I— iO>— 'I— '00^10050iOiO:*>-> 

t0tnCXlC0ts5t0i*».COO05t0^>—  4^Ot0OC»00Cncr^JlOc^Q0Cn^tl0050COI 
CO>*».*^Cn>fi.^OCOOOOOa500»t^OtOCnCnOCnOOOOOOOtOi-'0000( 


14^  ts3  CO  i-i  00  k-  t*^  O  I-'  ^  »*^  00  to  CO  OS  tfl  CD  to  cc 

>*>.co       ooc;iCno>tooiOa3to>f^>fi-co^i^tocococo^jco 

C:5t0004».-JtOOOO^OOOOOCnOOtOC00002^ 


toooiootoioototocotococcai)*^. 


a>k-^]K-ooooccoc2c;tH-cni 


C0CO4^)-i         CO         l-'0^lOH-COkfi.C002CO^I>-'-^>*>- 

OOOOOOtO         00050tOOOlOCOCnh4i.H->(:^0005CDOO-l*>.CntOCnOOOOC5a300H-COO>*».4^CO*'> 

^J^J05OC0OO05tnOO02C5OOOOOt0Ot0-jCji00C000CnC5C002>— tOOO^OOtOl 


■  to  to  ^  to 


'  02  '-C  4^  O  >*»•  en  02  > 


.C04^h—  CO^COOOO^^.i-'COOOcrk-^COtoOOOtOK'CO         I— 

05000502       I— i05Cnciit*».ooooirf^h;*a5toji-tooi— 'a2^i*'4i.^jcoc5cnaiOirf>.4»-4^^jCDCotocncn 

OOt005t0^at004^0000H-CROOOOlOOOtOO>f»-0000^40*>.Cn>*^OOOOt0  4^0lOitnCDtOOO 


*>.  ^J  to  00  01  *>■  1— '  ( 


^ito  ^j  to 

tO-J4^  ^ 

>*>■  CO  ^4  h- 


o  00  ^a  ^j 

cc-  to  CD  to 
.  OS  !*>.  00  00 


rf^  00  ^ 
»*>■  CO  h- 

ocoo 


^J  *.  cn  to 


OOOOOOOOOOrfi-OOOCOO 


tOOOOOCDCjiOiOtOO 


tOCnCntO  001— 'tO^JCOcDOlCO^J 
OOrf^cO  004».OtOht^tOtOOO-^I 
0>*^OiC005>t'0""  —    "  — 


■  to  O  4i.  K-  to  < 


*>•>*>.  05>-'OOCOCJi^l02CntOl— 'Oil 
►*>-Cn00^4^CCCD^a5000tOOCnt 
. _._     -.^oooi 


COOlO^-OCOtOOOOtOOOOOtnOCllOl 


tn  CD  CO  CD 


l-i  CO         CO 


»  k-  ^  00  Ol  CD  O  Oi  I 


'00020^00cDtO>*^000^10i 


CD  I— '  ^J  >— '         -^J  00  *-  CO  to  to  CO 'to  CO  CO  COl— >Cntn05  COCO^JtsS         I-* 

►—o^acn      0501       i-'oooioas  toco,  toooto  cocn^itocococn02kf^*»cncn       oi4!>.ocd       ooto 

Otnt0Orf».C04>.00OtnOO*'t0  O-fc  Orf^OOOOOOSCSCnOOOirf^OOtOCO-^IO-^IOOcDCncD 


tOtOI—  l^.*""  tOH-l-»)-i4i.,_.  I—toco 

_  CD  O  O  0  >— '  CO  00  O  to  05         CO\tO  l*>.^  05  0»  I— '"^  00  O  ^J  ^1  (*>.  Co"oi  o"h*>-  l_ 

opooiif>-  _  ootooo»^^itooo7ji^p>:^woooo4^oci»qocooi+>-i^i:-q>cptocnooc2too 


O  CO  CD  to 


000>*>" 


iCnOOOOOOOOOCnOtO( 


)Oi— 'OOOOOrf^OOtnOOitf^CnOOOOtoOOOtO 


OOCTlCOtO        00        l-i  •^i'h-  oVi  H- to  ^J  >*>■  >*>.  O        ">-' 05  (*>■  CO  K-To  Cn  to  tn  Cn  Oi  to'cD  osVi  to         to 

COOCOOO         O^JOOCni— »COO^IO>^a02C/<^a>»^>*^*^tO^J4i-ODt04^tnCT:tOOCOt004^0COCOO*>. 
OOCOtOCntoOCDOOtOOtnOcDOOOOCnOOtntntna>0000003rf».i-iCn^JtOOb0^tnO 


'  OOOtOO* 


-_      3         00         ►*>.  CD  CO  00  I— '  CO  00  tn  CD  Cn  05  CO  ^J  Cn  I— '  to 

jococnoco       03       o>Op— '>*»-torf».oocoo^a^)>-'tn-^tototn 
'OOOOOOH-OOtOif^OOO^-ltOOO^JOCnOCnOOOOcoOO 


k- 4^  to  CD -J  to  ^a  to  t*».  tn  to        00        tn  02  to  H- h- to  ^j  tn  K- CO  to  I-' O  ^J  CD  to        to 
■03tntn00itn-~ji— '1— 1— '^J^JCO^ji— >cDO00OH-Oi*»-OO05rf»-tnOi*^t0i-'C0i— 'to 

"" ■  ■toototoooocn(*»-oootootnoooooooi*^ 


iotnosoooocntotoe;»o> 


53 


H 

> 

w 

M 

W 

^ 

l-J 

H 

Cl 

ts- 

1 

0 

1 

^ 

hr) 

(/J 

T) 

P 

02 

B 

0 

i:i 

0 

tJ' 

U> 

Q 

c 

M- 

0 

0 

3 

- 

rr 

0  V! 

0 

0 

rn 

ri- 

0 

P 

§. 

cr»- 

54 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[ClRC.  1 


Table  17. — Canned  Peach  Production,  United  States  and  California,  1906-1925 


California 

United 

Year 

Clingstones 

Freestones 

Total 
equivalent 
fresh  tons 

Per  cent  of 

United 

States 

canned 

pack 

States. 

Total 

equivalent 

Cases 

Equivalent 
fresh  tons 

Cases 

Equivalent 
fresh  tons 

fresh 
tons 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

1906 

740,000 
715,025 
1,614,870 
998,245 
1,560,050 
1,494,925 
1,791,235 
1,751,100 
3,918,035 
2,407,650 
2,597,390 
3,607,568 
3,122,458 
5,096,249 
5,205,511 
4,162,849 
7,844,912 
6,591,335 
5,366,598 
9,258,587 

17,209 

16,629 

37,555 

23,215 

36,280 

34,766 

41,657 

40,723 

67,861 

55,992 

60,404 

83,897 

72,615 

118,517 

121,058 

96,810 

182,440 

153,287 

124,805 

215,316 

990,250 

1,039,585 

1,112,300 

692,500 

944,650 

894,600 

686,940 

1,014,025 

1,092,200 

831,875 

1,202,940 

1,554,393 

1,393,595 

1,962,700 

1,547,687 

1,633,418 

1,314,597 

872,676 

963,621 

1,198,314 

23,029 
24,176 
25,868 
16,105 
21,969 
20,805 
15,975 
23,582 
25,400 
19,346 
27,975 
36,149 
32,409 
45,644 
35,993 
37,987 
30,572 
20,295 
22,410 
27,868 

40,238 
40,805 
63,423 
39.320 
58,249 
55,571 
57,632 
64,305 
93,261 
75,338 
88,379 
120,046 
105,024 
164,161 
157,051 
134,797 
213,012 
173,582 
147,215 
243,184 

72 
75 
77 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
86 
87 
87 
88 
88 
89 
93 
98 
98 
97 
97 
97 

55,886 

1907 

54,407 

1908 

82,368 

1909 

49,150 

1910 

71,912 

1911 

67,770 

1912 

69,436 

1913 

76,554 

1914 

108,443 

1915 

86,595 

1916 

101,585 

1917 

136,416 

1918 

119,346 

1919 

184,451 

1920 

168,872 

1921 

137,548 

1922 

217,359 

1923 

178,951 

1924          

151,768 

1925    

250,705 

Sources  of  data: 

Columns  I  and  III.  Years  1906-1909,  California  Fruit  Grower,  Annual  Statistical  Numbers, 
1907-1910.  Figures  corrected  by  figuring  all  cases  of  No.  10  tins  on  basis  of  6  cans  per  case.  Years  1910- 
1924,  California  Annual,  July,  1925,  p.  10,  of  the  California  Packing  Corporation.  Data  for  years  1910- 
1917  compiled  from  records  furnished  by  H.  C.  Rowley,  and  data  for  years  1918-1924  compiled  from 
records  furnished  by  the  Canners'  League  of  Cahfornia.  Year  1925,  Canners'  League  of  California  Bui. 
No.  674-A,  Jan.  12,  1926. 

Columns  II  and  IV.     Conversion  factor,  43  cases  canned  peaches  =  1  ton  fresh  peaches. 

Column  VI.  Years  1909,  1914  and  1919,  14th  Census  of  United  States,  Vol.  X,  p.  76.  Years  1921 
and  1923,  Biennial  Census  of  Manufactures,  1921  and  1923.    Other  figures  interpolated. 

Column  VII.  Calculated  by  letting  figures  in  Column  V  equal  corresponding  percentages  in 
Column  VI. 


1926J 


CROPS   AND   PRICES:    PEACHES 


55 


Table  18. — Dried  Peach  Production,  United  States  and  California,   1906-1924 


Value 

California  production 

Year 

United  States 

California 

Per  cent  of 
United  States 
produced 
outside  of 
California 

Dried  tons 

Equivalent 
fresh  tons 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

1906 

$2,423,080 

$2,915,595 

$12,109,624 
$4,165,932 
$6,468,975 

$2,422,043 

$2,888,962 

$12,074,246 
$4,165,932 
$6,468,975 

.04 

.9 

.3 
0 
0 

10,000 
15,000 
23,000 
20,000 
25,000 
17,250 
29,000 
37,500 
35,100 
32,250 
28,000 
39,000 
20,000 
35,000 
27,000 
21,000 
28,000 
26,000 
24,500 
16,000 

55,000 

1907 .    ... 

82,500 

1908 

126,500 

1909 

110,000 

1910 

137,500 

1911 

94,875 

1912 

159,500 

1913 

206,250 

1914 

193,050 

1915 

177,375 

1916 

154,000 

1917 

214,500 

1918 

110,000 

1919 

192,500 

1920 

148,500 

1921 

115,500 

1922 

154,000 

1923 

143,000 

1924 

134,750 

1925* 

88,000 

*  Preliminary  estimate. 

Sources  of  data: 

Columns  I  and  II.  14th  Census  of  U.  S.,  Vol.  X,  p.  79,  and  Biennial  Census  of  Manufactures,  1921 
and  1923. 

Column  IV.  Years  1906-1923.  Armsby's  Weekly  Letter,  Jan.  1916,  and  CaHfornia  Annual,  July, 
1925,  p.  14.    Year  1924.     CaHfornia  Fruit  News,  Annual  Statistical  Number  for  1925. 

Column  V.    Conversion  factor:     1  ton  dried  peaches  =  5.5  tons  fresh  peaches. 

Note:  Practically  all  of  the  dried  peaches  are  produced  in  CaHfornia  as  shown  in  Column  III. 
Although  the  census  figures  on  tonnage  do  not  agree  exactly  with  the  figures  given  in  Column  IV  for  the 
years  1919,  1921  and  1923,  they  also  indicate  that  practically  all  of  the  dried  peaches  are  produced  in 
California. 


56 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Table  19. — Production  of  Fresh,  Dried,  and  Canned  Peaches,  United  States, 

1906-1925 


Canned 

Dried 

Fresh 

Per  cent  of  United  States 

Total  production 

peaches 

peaches 

peaches 

total  production 

Year 

1000 

Equivalent 

Equivalent 

bushels 

Tons 

fresh  tons 

fresh  tons 

Tons 

Canned 

Dried 

Fresh 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

1906 

44,104 

1.058.496 

55.886 

55.000 

947,610 

5  3 

5  2 

89.5 

1907 

22,527 

540,648 

54,407 

82.500 

403.741 

10  0 

15.3 

74.7 

1908 

48,146 

1,155,504 

82,368 

126,500 

946,636 

7  1 

10.9 

82.0 

1909 

35,470 

851,280 

49,150 

110,000 

692,130 

5.8 

12.9 

81  3 

1910 

48.171 

1,156,104 

71,912 

137,500 

946.692 

6  2 

11.9 

81.9 

1911 

34,880 

837,120 

67,770 

94.875 

674,475 

8  1 

11.4 

80.5 

1912 

52,343 

1.256,332 

69,436 

159.500 

1,027.296 

5.5 

12  7 

81.8 

1913 

39,707 

952,968 

76,554 

206.250 

670.164 

8  0 

21.6 

70.4 

1914 

54,109 

1,298,616 

108,443 

193,050 

997,123 

8.3 

14.9 

76.8 

1915 

64,097 

1.538,32« 

86,595 

177.375 

1.274.358 

5.6 

11.5 

82.9 

1916 

37,505 

900.120 

101,585 

154,000 

644,535 

11  2 

17.1 

71.7 

1917 

48,765 

1,170,360 

136,416 

214,500 

819,444 

11  6 

18.3 

70.1 

1918 

33,094 

794,256 

119,346 

110.000 

564,910 

15  0 

13.8 

71.2 

1919 

53,178 

1,276,272 

184,451 

192,500 

899,321 

14.4 

15.0 

70.6 

1920 

45.620 

1.094.880 

168,872 

148,500 

777,508 

15.5 

13  5 

71.0 

1921 

32,602 

782.448 

137,548 

115,500 

529,400 

17.5 

14.7 

67.8 

1922 

55,852 

1,340,448 

217,359 

154,000 

969,089 

16  2 

11.5 

72  3 

1923 

45,382 

1,089,168 

178,951 

143,000 

767,217 

16.4 

13.1 

70.5 

1924 

54,119 

1,298,856 

151,768 

134,750 

1,012,338 

11.7 

10.3 

78.0 

1925 

46.565 

1.117,560 

250,705 

88,000 

778,855 

22.4 

7.9 

69.7 

Sources  of  data: 

Column  I.    U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook,  1924,  p.  679.    Year  1925,  preliminary  estimate. 

Column  II.    Conversion  factor:    1  bushel  =  48  pounds. 

Column  III.    See  Table  17. 

Column  IV.    See  Table  18. 

Column  V.    Columns  III  +  IV  subtracted  from  Column  II, 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


57 


Table  20. — Commercial   Peach   Production,    California,   1906-1925 
(Equivalent  Fresh  Tons) 


Per  cent  of  California 

Total 

Canned 

Dried 

Interstate  shipments 

commercial  production 

Shipped 
fresh 

Year 

- 

Cars 

Tons 

Canned 

Dried 

I 

II 

Ill 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

1906 

101,662 

40,238 

55,000 

584 

6,424 

39.6 

54  0 

6.4 

1907 

130,994 

40,805 

82,500 

699 

7,689 

31.1 

63.0 

5.9 

1908 

211,703 

63,423 

126,500 

1,980 

21,780 

30  0 

59.8 

10  2 

1909 

177,909 

39,320 

110,000 

2,599 

28,589 

22  2 

61.8 

16  0 

1910 

223,447 

58,249 

137,500 

2,518 

27,698 

26  0 

61.6 

12.4 

1911 

174,770 

55,571 

94,875 

2,027 

24,324 

31.8 

54.3 

13.9 

1912 

236,584 

57,632 

159,500 

1,621 

19,452 

24.5 

67.3 

8.2 

1913 

299,307 

64,305 

206,250 

2,396 

28,752 

21.4 

69.0 

9.6 

1914 

312,039 

93,261 

193,050 

2,144 

25.728 

29.9 

61.9 

8.2 

1915 

272,981 

75,338 

177,375 

1,689 

20,268 

27.5 

65  0 

7.5 

1916 

265,299 

88,379 

154,000 

1,910 

22,920 

33.4 

58  0 

8.6 

1917 

363,730 

120,046 

214,500 

2,432 

29,184 

33  0 

59.0 

8  0 

1918 

252,668 

105,024 

110,000 

3,137 

37,644 

41.6 

43.5 

14.9 

1919 

389,949 

164,161 

192,500 

2,774 

33,288 

42.0 

49.4 

8.6 

1920 

343,327 

157,051 

148,500 

3,148 

37,776 

45.8 

43.2 

11.0 

1921 

290,305 

134,797 

115,500 

3.334 

40,008 

46.4 

39.8 

13.8 

1922 

394,792 

213,012 

154.000 

2,315 

27,780 

54  0 

39.0 

7.0 

1923 

360,694 

173,582 

143,000 

3,676 

44,112 

48.2 

39.6 

12  2 

1924 

304,021 

147,215 

134,750 

1,838 

22,056 

48.5 

44.3 

7.2 

1925 

366,596 

243,184 

88,000 

2,951 

35,412 

66.2 

24.1 

9.7 

Sources  of  data: 

Column  II. 

Column  III. 

Column  IV. 

Column  V. 
carload. 


See  Table  17. 
See  Table  18. 

California  Fruit  News,  Annual  Statistical  Numbers. 
Conversion  factor.    Years  1906-1910,  11  tons  =  l  carload;  years  1911-1925,  12  tons  =  l 


58 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Table  21. — Peaches,  California  Estimated  Acreage  by  Counties,  Bearing  and 

Non-bearing,  1922-1925 


1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

Non- 

Non-' 

Non- 

Non- 

Bearing 

bearing 

Bearing 

bearing 

Bearing 

bearing 

Bearing 

bearing 

The  State 

107,786 

22,518 

115,618 

24,597 

120,947 

28,455 

131,508 

42,914 

District  No.  1: 

Humboldt 

60 

20 

100 

10 

110 

5 

115 

5 

Mendocino 

100 

100 

100 

100 

125 

80 

131 

82 

District  No.  2: 

Shasta 

800 

400 

800 

400 

800 

400 

500 

300 

Siskiyou 

43 

10 

90 

15 

90 

15 

100 

9 

District  No.  3: 

Lassen 

40 

5 

40 

5 

40 

5 

40 

5 

Modoc 

21 

2 

30 

7 

30 

7 

30 

7 

District  No.  4: 

Alameda 

100 

30 

105 

30 

65 

30 

155 

350 

Contra  Costa 

650 
30 

200 
2 

464 
32 

275 
6 

739 
38 

137 
24 

751 
43 

543 

Lake 

41 

Marin 

23 

20 

25 

15 

35 

6 

38 

5 

Monterey 

50 

85 

86 

46 

100 

32 

307 

Napa 

100 

285 
975 

25 

394 

55 

100 
506 
975 

25 
501 
382 

100 

549 

1,051 

50 

379 
520 

100 

651 

1,155 

San  Benito 

179 

San  Luis  Obispo 

483 

San  Mateo     

7 
3,000 

38 
700 

27 
3,000 

44 
700 

71 
3,100 

16 
536 

80 
4,980 

32 

Santa  Clara 

536 

Santa  Cruz 

150 

50 

175 

25 

175 

25 

200 

100 

Sonoma 

612 

179 

650 

25 

650 

125 

400 

225 

District  No.  5: 

Butte 

2,281 

123 

2,281 

123 

2,650 

240 

2,710 

460 

Colusa 

74 

27 

74 

27 

74 

27 

81 

20 

Glenn 

317 

112 

312 

111 

368 

107 

403 

325 

Sacramento 

1,840 

490 

2,086 

1,074 

2,341 

1,335 

2,541 

2,000 

Solano 

7,000 

780 

7,176 

706 

3,000 

700 

3,602 

506 

Sutter 

5,220 

3,719 

6,150 

4,394 

7,579 

2,502 

8,981 

5,870 

Tehama 

1,552 

64 

1,552 

64 

1,472 

493 

1,699 

266 

Yolo 

747 

85 

1,414 

860 

1,420 

600 

1,714 

755 

Yuba 

660 

395 

810 

245 

1,055 

575 

1,435 

1,955 

District  No.  5a: 

Fresno 

25,150 

1,010 

25,150 

250 

24,000 

125 

23,000 

450 

Kern 

554 

92 

554 

92 

600 

250 

800 

430 

Kings 

4,631 

382 

4,700 

800 

5,200 

800 

5,131 

1,047 

Madera 

1,414 

709 

1,848 

202 

1,641 

1,251 

2,792 

629 

Merced 

5,900 

2,578 

5,900 

4,233 

8,409 

3,365 

8,409 

7.838 

San  Joaquin 

4,130 

922 

4,684 

1,238 

5,000 

1,157 

5,685 

463 

Stanislaus 

4,150 

553 

6,463 

1,543 

7,915 

3,579 

8,708 

3,910 

Tulare 

8,120 

1,222 

9,342 

117 

9,449 

3,110 

12,559 

6,497 

District  No.  6: 

Amador 

174 

14 

178 

10 

178 

10 

183 

5 

Calaveras 

83 

13 

85 

11 

30 

10 

85 

10 

El  Dorado 

500 
120 

287 
10 

500 
120 

307 
10 

600 
120 

207 
10 

600 
100 

150 

Inyo 

10 

Mariposa 

24 

6 

24 

6 

24 

6 

24 

6 

Nevada 

140 

35 

145 

30 

150 

25 

140 

25 

Placer 

7,963 

364 

S,203 

299 

8,215 

976 

8,345 

1.113 

Tuolumne 

150 

120 

124 

10 

124 

10 

130 

10 

District  No.  8: 

5,986 

1,137 

6,198 

1,122 

6,198 

1,122 

5,309 

1.459 

Orange 

Riverside 

200 

53 

10 

3,070 

2,661 

2,990 

2,219 

5,142 

1,243 

5,385 

1,384 

San  Bernardino 

6,880 

1,556 

7,380 

1,350 

7,690 

1,601 

8,630 

1,869 

1,500 

626 

1,625 

587 

2,155 

530 

2,257 

420 

Santa  Barbara 

165 

20 

175 

22 

197 

65 

200 

75 

Ventura 

45 

38 

70 

14 

83 

32 

84 

55 

Estimated  acreage  planted  in  state:    1921,  6,057;   1922,  18,788;   1923,  28,885;   1924,  70,484. 
Sources  of  data: 

E.  E.  Kaufman — Mimeographed  reports,  June  20,  1922,  and  April  12,  1923;  California  Crop  Reports 
1923  and  1924. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


59 


Table  22. — Weekly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Fresh  Peaches  from  California, 

1921-1925 


1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

Month 

Week 
ending 

Cars 

Week 
ending 

Cars 

Week 
ending 

Cars 

Week 
ending 

Cars 

Week 
ending 

Cars 

5 

12 
19 
26 

3 

10 
17 
24 
31 

7 
14 
21 

28 

4 
11 
18 
25 

2 

4 
11 
18 
25 

2 
9 

16 
23 
30 

6 
13 

20 
27 

3 

10 
17 
24 

1 

3 
10 

17 
24 

1 
8 

15 
22 
29 

5 
12 
19 
26 

2 
9 

16 
23 
30 

6 

47 
75 
30 

24 
71 

123 
561 
1259 

724 

252 

116 

91 

129 

105 

43 

14 

3 

1 

8 
15 

22 

29 
6 
13 

20 

27 

3 

10 
17 
24 

31 

7 

14 
21 

28 

1 
3 

27 

60 
51 
12 

19 
69 

301 
966 
517 
166 

43 
15 
15 
10 
15 

1 

44 
60 

13 
34 
46 
199 
632 

370 
151 
74 
64 

68 
37 
16 
20 
3 

7 
14 
21 

28 
5 

12 
19 
26 

2 
9 

16 
23 

30 
6 
13 
20 
27 

3 

July 

55 

22 

4 

15 

30 

152 

809 

1232 

535 

277 

70 

43 

42 
25 

7 

45 
41 

14 

August 

September 

15 

40 

169 

448 

816 
615 
352 
137 

44 
65 
87 
32 
11 

Total* 

3,318 

2,290 

3,670 

1,832 

2,934 

*  The  totals  given  here  are  less  than  the  total  shipments  for  the  year,  as 
are  shipped  in  October. 

Sources  of  data:    California  Fruit  News. 


few  carloads  of  peaches 


Table  23.— Fresh  Peaches  Carlot  Shipments  by  States  of  Origin,  1920-1925 


State 


1920 


1921 


1922 


1923 


1924 


Average 
1920-24 


1925^ 


Georgia 

New  York 

Cahforniaf 

Colorado 

New  Jersey 

Arkansas 

Michigan 

Utah 

Washington 

North  Carolina. 

Illinois 

Ohio 

Texas 

Tennessee 

All  others 

Total 


5,987 

4,635 

3,148 

1,091 

1,022 

56 

2,358 

366 

221 

379 

557 

1,025 

76 

154 

2,363 


10,330 

2,967 

3,334 

1,223 

5 

607 

176 

805 

1,117 

594 

35 

88 

1,024 

217 

470 


7,370 
6,862 
2,315 
1,428 
1,595 
1,563 
1,650 
1,261 

990 
1,452 
1,683 

620 
32 

248 
2,512 


8,701 

2,777 

3,676 

1,254 

1,790 

724 

1,087 

1,203 

1,645 

215 

390 

625 

102 

53 

2,747 


13,504 
3,436 
1,838 
1,772 
1,461 
2,785 

105 
1,109 

412 
1,657 

860 
14 

763 

752 
3,501 


9,178 

4,135 

2,862 

1,354 

1,175 

1,147 

1,075 

949 

877 

859 

705 

474 

399 

285 

2,319 


23,438 


22,992 


31,581 


26,989 


33,969 


27,793 


13,543 
3,009 
2,951 

747 
1,044 
2,293 

254 
88 

992 
1,968 

579 

469 
1,082 

605 
1,004 


30,628 


*  Year  1925  subject  to  revision, 
t  California  interstate  shipments. 


See  Table  20. 


Sources  of  data: 
Years  1920-1923. 
Years  1924-1925. 


U.  S.  D.  A.  Statistical  Bulletin,  No.  8,  pp.  41-50,  1925. 
Copies  from  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


60 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Table  24. — Carlot  Shipments  of  Fresh  Peaches  by  Months,  United  States 
and  California,  1921-1925 


Year 


Month 


United  States 


Cars 


California  interstate  shipments 


Cars 


II 


Per  cent  of 
United  States 


III 


1921 


1922 


1923 


1924 


1925 


Total 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 

June 

July 

August 

September 


23,028 
4,012 
8,725 
5,225 
3,562 

31,521 
3,184 
7,540 
8,613 

10,489 

26,989 
2,384 
8,867 
6,804 
8,147 

33,969 

1.873 

12,722 

11,223 

6,802 

30,628 
4,953 

14,788 
6,095 
4,169 


3,334 

78 

1,010 

2,132 


2,315 
64 
178 

1,985 
63 

3,676 
173 

2,377 
922 
198 

1,838 

103 

843 

816 

70 

2,951 

103 

1,255 

1,381 

195 


14  5 

2.0 
11  6 
40  8 

2  8 

7  3 

2  0 

2  4 

23  0 

.6 

13  6 

7.2 
26.8 
13  5 

2.4 


Sources  of  data: 

Column  I.  Years  1921-1923,  U.  S.  D.  A.  Yearbook,  1924,  p.  681.  Years  1924-1925,  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics.  Figures  for  1925  subject  to  revision.  Original  figures  revised  by  subtracting 
California  total  carlot  shipment  from  total  United  States  shipments  and  adding  California  interstate 
shipments  to  the  result.  The  number  of  cars  shipped  during  the  four  months  do  not  equal  the  total 
shipment,  as  some  peaches  are  shipped  during  May  and  October. 

Column  II.     California  Fruit  News. 


]926 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


61 


O  a, 
r  ^ 

i" 
1 

cr 

o 
o 

0^ 

5' 

D 

3 

-D 
0 

o 

a 

i 

1 

73 

J 

-! 

.J 

3 

p 
Q 

<! 

3 

■T 

3  C 

■no 
2:5 

•D 

0 
■-1 

p 

3 

■6    — 
?   3 

^p 

1 

S3' 

Birmingham 

Boston 

Buffalo 

Chicago 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Dallas 

Denver 

Detroit 

Fort  Worth 

Indianapolis 

Kansas  City 

Louisville 

Los  Angeles 

Memphis 

P    ^ 

^p" 

0 

to 

"^ 

en 

to 

en  : 

00 

H-^ 

- 

:     ;     C5: 

to 

CCrf>.»*^ 

: 

0 

p 

■-J 

05 

C-l 

(3 

s 
^ 

-J 

en 

CJi 

OO 

cm 

^co 

to 

to  i^ 

tOOOK- 

rf^  ►— 

CO 

oo^i  tog; 

05 

^^00.^ 

0 
P 

en 
en 

. 

g 

p 

g[3 

CO  CO       -■>  ^ 
H^  OCn  H-  O2  00 

l—Oi 

CO         tOH-"'       0^                t005l— 'TtO^I 
CO  to  1—  -^-1 :     CO  h*^  to  0  to  en  ^  cc  to  H- 

0 
P 

> 
c 

GO 

2 

CO 

Oi. 

1— to 

Cn  I-' 
to  :       h^^  to  OO  ft^ 

tf^  en  rf^  CO  to  ; 

to 

^co  oto  i—  to 

^ 

0 

i 

^ 
^ 

8 

en 

H- 
S 

>«^ 

o^  to 

02  -^J 

g^SicoSlES 

!*».  1— '         01         to  to  :       ^J  CO         to  ^I  to  rfi'  >4^  to 

OiCOh^^OCn-jO;     i-'(X>rf^OH->*^oioa.  rf^ 

»^ 

9 

3 

H 
0 

05 

§ 

to 

CO 

to  ; 

:     to  ff^bo 

CO 

CO 

^   ^; 

to 

oto 

9 
3 

C 
3 

to 

o 

CO 

COCO                        to  ■           to  to 

H-  oo  en  o  to  -1  ,     H-  Ol       H^  1—  en 

F-as  to 

to 

H- 

J  g; 

CO 

^01^ 

0 

C_| 

Ol 

CO 

to 

1 

^ 
g 

s^gg^^^^al 

^§ 

2K 

en 

05 

(-"j     :     eo:     eotoH-2^en 

p 

> 
c 
in 

to 

^ 

H- 

*- 

eof4i. 

oo; 

03 

to 

CO  ►-'  CO  Ol : 

03 

en 

to: 

0 

p 

3 

§ 

-<1 

o 

^ 

^ 

^^I^g^oofecntoi;     cofeSo-g^ 

eni-'>t>.02i-':      tf>.:      CoeoH-^oot^^ 

to: 

0 
p 

E 

CO 

►t^ 

oo 

H-en  to 

en: 

<o 

H- to 

CO 
00 

'-':      :      ^: 

eo^- 

1 

e-i 
3 

1 

1^ 

s 

1 

!-•  to  CO 

to  O  CD  to  00  to 

CO 

ol^too 

H-:      :      to:      en 

OlCOOl 

3^ 

o 

§ 

o 

tococn        -ji— 1        C51— '        tn 
H-totO-.JCnOJH-i-'Cnh^OtOOsaii-' 

00^  ^ 

eo^^i-'O 

coento^o:      Cnt^H-ooi^cD 

to: 

0 

p 

;> 
^ 

CO 

o 

^ 

-^ 

tooo 

CO  to 

i  ^c 

ifs^toCoSn-'en^^en 

^ 

CO 

eo 

CD 

to  to 

H- 

9 
3 

1 

i 

i 

o 

to 

to 

S? 

-J 

i 

00 

00  to 

Ol 

to 

to  ►— 

o>  to 

to  O) 

a 

~j 

oo 

35 

OS 

g 

- 

oo 

JO  CO  OS 

0^ 

0 

^ 

- 

to 

en 

^ 

to 

to  ^ 

0 
3 

E 

62 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


Table  26. — Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Canning  and  Dried 
Peaches,   F.O.B.    Growers'   Shipping  Points,   1901-1925 


All 

Canning  peaches 

Dried  peaches 

com- 

Clingstone 

Freestone 

Price, 

Year 

modity 
index 

cents 
per 

Relative 
price 

Relative 

value 

Price 

Relative 

Relative 

Price 

Relative 

Relative 

pound 

per  ton 

price 

value 

per  ton 

price 

value 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

1901 

81 

$33 

114 

141 

$31 

126 

156 

4  75 

100 

123 

1902 

86 

23 

79 

92 

19 

77 

90 

4  25 

90 

105 

1903 

87 

25 

86 

99 

21 

85 

98 

4.75 

100 

115 

1904 

87 

45 

155 

178 

37 

150 

172 

6.25 

132 

152 

1905 

88 

41 

141 

160 

29 

118 

134 

4.75 

100 

114 

1906 

90 

49 

169 

188 

33 

134 

149 

8.50 

179 

198 

1907 

95 

66 

228 

240 

46 

187 

197 

9.50 

200 

210 

1908 

92 

22 

76 

83 

20 

81 

88 

4.50 

95 

103 

1909 

99 

18 

62 

63 

20 

81 

82 

4.00 

84 

85 

1910 

103 

22 

76 

74 

22 

89 

86 

3  75 

79 

77 

1911 

95 

44 

152 

160 

36 

146 

154 

7.50 

158 

161 

1912 

101 

24 

83 

82 

22 

89 

88 

4.50 

95 

94 

1913 

102 

30 

103 

101 

22 

89 

87 

4.00 

84 

82 

1914 

100 

25 

86 

86 

21 

86 

86 

4.00 

84 

84 

1915 

103 

12 

41 

40 

10 

41 

40 

3.00 

63 

61 

1916 

129 

29 

100 

78 

23 

93 

72 

6.00 

126 

98 

1917 

180 

35 

121 

67 

29 

118 

66 

8.25 

174 

97 

1918 

198 

50 

172 

87 

34 

138 

70 

11  00 

232 

117 

1919 

210 

88 

303 

149 

58 

236 

112 

14.88 

314 

149 

1920 

230 

100 

344 

148 

64 

260 

113 

12.25 

258 

112 

1921 

150 

35 

121 

81 

27 

110 

73 

7.50 

158 

105 

1922 

152 

57 

196 

129 

45 

183 

120 

7.35 

155 

102 

1923 

156 

29 

100 

64 

25 

102 

65 

4  75 

100 

64 

1924 

152 

43 

148 

97 

25 

102 

67 

5  35 

112 

74 

1925 

162 

33 

114 

71 

30 

122 

76 

8.25* 

174 

107 

Sources  of  data: 

Column  I.  Bureau  of  Labor  Index  converted  to  a  5-year  base  (1910-1914).  Published  in  the  Supple- 
ment to  the  Agricultural  Situation,  June,  1925,  pp.  54-62. 

Column  II  and  V.  Data  compiled  by  the  California  Canning  Peach  Growers'  Association  from 
prices  paid  by  canners  north  of  the  Tehachapi  Pass  prior  to  1922,  and  from  prices  paid  by  the  association 
subsequent  to  1922.     The  prices  are  the  weighted  average  prices  for  all  grades. 

Column  VIII.  Data  compiled  by  the  California  Peach  and  Fig  Growers  from  prices  paid  by  packers 
prior  to  1916,  and  from  prices  paid  by  the  association  subsequent  to  1916.  The  prices  are  the  weighted 
average  prices  for  all  grades.  *  1925  price  estimated. 

Columns  III,  VI  and  IX.     Average  1910-1914  =  100. 

Columns  IV,  VII  and  X.  Relative  prices  deflated  by  the  All  Commodity  Index.  The  term  value  is 
used  to  denote  purchasing  power. 


1926] 


CROPS   AND   PRICES  :    PEACHES 


63 


Table  27. — Elberta  Peaches,  Relative  Purchasing  Power,  F.O.B.  Growers' 

Shipping  Points,  1906-1925. 

(Per  standard  box) 


Chicago 

New  York 

Aver- 
age 

Rela- 
tive 

Rela- 

tive 

Freight 

Freight 

f.o.b. 

price 

value 

Year 

Auction 

Com- 

and 

F.o.b. 

Auction 

Com- 

and 

F.o.b. 

price 

mission 

refriger- 
ation 

price 

price 

mission 

refriger- 
ation 

price 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

1906 

1.16 

.081 

.349 

.73 

1.21 

.085 

.407 

.718 

.724 

160 

178 

1907 

1.20 

.084 

.326 

.79 

1.61 

.113 

.407 

1.090 

.940 

208 

219 

1908 

.326 
.326 

1.03 

.85 

.072 
.060 

.407 
.395 

.551 
.395 

.551 

.448 

122 

99 

133 

1909 

.89 

.062 

.502 

100 

1910 

.89 

.062 

.326 

.502 

1.12 

.078 

.336 

.706 

.604 

133 

129 

1911 

.97 

.068 

.305 

.597 

.85 

.060 

.315 

.475 

.536 

118 

124 

1912 

.72 

.050 

.309 

.361 

.66 

.046 

.319 

.295 

.328 

72 

71 

1913 

.309 
.309 

.319 
.319 

1914 

.69 

.048 

.333 

.72 

.050 

.351 

.342 

76 

76 

1915 

.56 

.039 

.309 

.212 

.53 

.037 

.319 

.174 

.193 

43 

42 

1916 

.91 

.064 

.309 

.537 

.92 

.064 

.319 

.537 

.537 

118 

91 

1917 

.88 

.062 

.309 

.509 

.82 

.057 

.321 

.442 

.476 

105 

58 

1918 

1.27 

.089 

.371 

.810 

1.05 

.074 

.384 

.592 

.701 

155 

78 

1919 

1.11 

.078 

.371 

.661 

.85 

.060 

.384 

.406 

.534 

118 

56 

1920 

1.27 

.089 

.384 

.797 

1.09 

.076 

.396 

.618 

.708 

156 

68 

1921 

1.30 

.091 

.487 

.722 

1.18 

.083 

.499 

.598 

.660 

146 

97 

1922 

.80 

.056 

.446 

.298 

.79 

.055 

.458 

.277 

.288 

64 

42 

1923 

.90 

.063 

.446 

.391 

.82 

.057 

.458 

.305 

.348 

77 

49 

1924 

.97 

.068 

.446 

.456 

1.05 

.074 

.458 

.518 

.487 

108 

71 

1925 

1.14 

.080 

.446 

.614 

1.12 

.078 

.458 

.584 

.599 

132 

82 

Sources  of  data: 

Column  I.  Years  1906-1916.  California  Fruit  News.  Average  of  daily  prices  during  August.  Year 
1913  missing.  Years  1917-1925.  Compiled  from  Chicago  Fruit  and  Vegetable  Reporter  by  the  Stewart 
Fruit  Company.     Weighted  average  of  daily  prices. 

Columns  II  and  VI.     Commission  7  per  cent  of  gross  sales  price. 

Columns  III  and  VII.  Compiled  by  the  Pacific  Fruit  Express  from  Freight  and  Refrigeration 
Tariffs. 

Column  V.  Years  1906-1916.  California  Fruit  News.  Average  of  daily  prices  during  August. 
Year  1913  missing.  Years  1917-1925.  Compiled  from  New  York  Daily  Fruit  Reporter  by  the  Stewart 
Fruit  Company.    Weighted  average  of  daily  prices. 

Column  IX.    Average  of  Columns  IV  and  VIII. 

Column  X.    Average  1910-1914  =  100. 

Column  XI.    Relative  prices  deflated  by  the  All  Commodity  Index. 


64 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  1 


CONTENTS 


Summary,   3. 

The  general  situation,   7. 

Peach   acreage,    United    States,    7. 
Peach  production.   United   States,    7. 
Main  peach  producing  states,    8. 
Changes   in  peach   producing   areas,    8. 
Utilization    of    the    United    States    peach 

crop,    12. 
California's  place   in  the   peach    industry, 

13. 
Utilization    of   the    California   peach   crop, 

14. 
Peach  acreage,  California,   17. 

Canning  peaches,   19. 

Varieties    of   canning   peaches,    19. 

Canned  peach  production,  California,   21. 

Per  capita  production  of  canned  peaches, 
United  States,  21. 

Canned  peach  exports,   21. 

Main  foreign  markets  for  canned  peaches, 
21. 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  canning 
peaches,  22. 

Relation  between  canners'  opening  prices 
and  growers'  prices,   24. 

Relation  between  production  and  pur- 
chasing power  of  canning  peaches,   25. 

Dried  peaches,   27. 

Production  of  dried  peaches,  27. 

Exports   of   dried  peaches,    27. 

Main   foreign  markets  for  dried  peaches, 

29. 
Per  capita  consumption  of  dried  peaches, 

30. 
Purchasing   power   of   dried  peaches,    30. 


Fresh  peaches,   32. 

Varieties  of  shipping  peaches  in  Cali- 
fornia,   32. 

Shipping  districts  for  fresh  peaches  in 
California,    33. 

Production  of  fresh  peaches,  United 
States   and    California,    33. 

Fresh   peach   exports,    34. 

Per  capita  production  of  fresh  peaches, 
34. 

California's  interstate  fresh  peach  ship- 
ments,   35. 

Seasonal  variation  in  California's  inter- 
state   shipments,    35. 

Relative  importance  of  the  principal 
fresh  peach  producing  states,  36. 

California's  fresh  peaches  are  widely 
distributed,  39. 

Principal  markets  for  California  fresh 
peaches,    39. 

States  which  compete  directly  with  Cali- 
fornia,  40. 

The  market  for  fresh  peaches  is  nation- 
wide,   41. 

Purchasing  power  of  Elberta  peaches,  41. 

Close  relation  between  peach  prices  in 
the  various  markets,  42. 

Seasonal  variation  in  prices  of  California 
Elberta  peaches,   43. 

California  fresh  peaches  on  an  eastern 
shipment  basis,   44. 

Cost   of   producing   canning  peaches,    Stani- 
slaus County,   California,    1925,   45. 

Total  cost  of  producing  canning  peaches, 
45. 

Labor    costs    of    cultural    operations,    46. 

Yields,  47. 

Cost  per  ton,  48. 

Influence  of  yield  on  cost  of  production, 
48. 

Appendix — Foreign    peach    statistics,    49. 

Tables,    52. 


20m-4,'26 


